Distinguished Visitors 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1597

Thursday, 11 May 1989

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.36 a.m. and read the prayer.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The SPEAKER-Order! On behalf of the Legislative Assembly I welcome to the Public Gallery visiting members of Pacific Island Parliaments who are in Australia on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study tour. They are: the Honourable Tomu Sione, MP, and the Honourable lonatana lonatana, MP, CVO, OBE, both of whom are from Tuvalu; the Honourable Tooki Kaake, MP, and the Honourable Tabivia Teitiniman, MP, both of whom are from Kiribati; and the Honourable Mataio Aperau, MP, and the Honourable Tiriamate Ngatokorua, MP, from the Cook Islands. Welcome!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

TRICONTINENTAL CORPORATION LTD Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that officers of the National Companies and Securities Commission are investigating two senior executives, Mr lan lohns and Mr Bruce Ziebell, both of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd-a company wholly owned by State Bank Victoria-for possible breaches of the Companies (Victoria) Code, because a company which they own is involved in the buying and selling of shares in companies in which Tricontinental has loaned money and in which it has equity investments. When did the Treasurer first become aware of these investigations? Mr JOLLY (Treasurer)-As the honourable member for Brighton would be aware, Tricontinental Corporation Ltd has been a merchant bank of long standing in the State. It is one of the biggest if not the biggest merchant bank in Australia. The State Bank has always been a shareholder of that organisation. Tricontinental has a completely independent board which makes commercial decisions and which has earned considerable profits over a longe period. As to the allegations that have been made by Ben Hills of the Herald, I inform the House that lan lohns has sought legal advice on particular matters; and, according to information provided to me, that legal advice shows that there has not been any breach of the Companies (Victoria) Code in respect of this matter. There will be a further article published in the Herald today, which I shall examine; and I shall ask for a detailed response from the State Bank on the matter.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS FARM ATWERRIBEE Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-In view of reports that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Werribee farm is consistently breaching Environment Protection Authority environmental standards, will the Minister for Water Resources inform the House of the penalties that have been paid by the board and whether these 1598 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Questions without Notice are consistent with penalties imposed on private enterprise for similar offences? Will he advise what action he is taking to ensure that these breaches cease forthwith? Mr W ALSH (Minister for Water Resources)-In respect of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works going against the standards of the Environment Protection Authority, I assure the honourable member for Swan Hill that the board works closely with the Environment Protection Authority to ensure that standards are maintained. That will continue. I understand that any time a breach occurs it is rectified forthwith. The Environment Protection Authority conducts regular monitoring at the Werribee farm and that will continue. All issues raised by the authority will be rectified and I assure the honourable member that, if he wants to compare the Werribee farm with the New South Wales sewerage situation, he will find that we are miles and years ahead. New South Wales people have visited the Werribee farm and I hope they take their experience back to New South Wales. The farm is also regularly visited by overseas visitors. I know it is in your electorate, Mr Speaker, and you could probably tell the people more about all the projects we are assisting in China and other places. I believe we are doing well. We will ensure that the EPA standards are maintained.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN VICTORIA Mr SEITZ (Keilor)-In view of my keen interest in the development of universities in Victoria, can the Premier advise the House of the government's position in relation to recent reports about establishing a branch of the Tasmanian University in Melbourne? Mr CAIN (Premier)-The government is aware of the suggestion of starting a branch of the so-called Tasman University in Melbourne. We have consistently supported the strong public sector institutions that we have in higher education. We have a firm policy that is opposed to the recognition of private universities in this State. Private universities in this part of the world have been championed by the free marketeers-I suppose one could call them-of the new right; the kinds of people who have been hijacking the Liberal Party in recent times and imposing their will in a number of electorates. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr CAIN-To help the Leader of the National Party, who dearly wants a coalition with the Liberals, I want him to be aware-- Honourable members interjecting. Mr SPEAKER-Order! The Premier is answering the question as he heard it. I ask the Premier to answer it without interruption. Honourable members interjecting. Mr CAIN-For those who are also supporters of the Bond University; I call it the Tasman University. They are the universities that are championed by those free marketeers who are running the Liberal Party and who have run the National Party for years. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! It is impossible for the Premier to be heard because of the level of interjections coming from both sides of the House. Questions without Notice 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1599

Dr Napthine-Direct him to answer the question! The SPEAKER-Order! I ask honourable members to listen to the Premier's answer without interruption. If honourable members-like the Leader of the National Party­ have a further question, they will be called at the appropriate opportunity. Mr CAIN-I repeat that the Bond University concept of private enterprise universities is an enunciation of the view of the extreme new right who run the Liberal Party and who have been frustrated by the saddling up of the show pony once again, but the new right is firmly in the saddle-the Liberal Party should understand that. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr CAIN-The Leader of the National Party does not want to hear about private universities! Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! I caution the honourable member for Portland and the Leader of the National Party who, together, are leading the barrage of interjections. It is making it difficult for the Premier to complete his answer, difficult for honourable members to hear his answer, and adding nothing to the decorum of the Chamber. Mr CAIN-It is apparent that both here and in Canberra, Liberal Party and National Party Leaders without substance are having their empty vessels filled by noise and extreme right philosophy. When I hear all that noise this morning, that is the only conclusion I can come to. Mr Heft'ernan interjected. Mr CAIN-If the honourable member for Ivanhoe has, as he says he does, the numbers for his friend on his left-the honourable member for Bennettswood-let him put them into effect. Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I direct to your attention Standing Order No. 127. The Premier is obviously debating the question, and I ask you to bring him back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! I have been listening to the Premier's reply. I believe the Premier has allowed himself to be distracted by interjections. I ask him to complete his answer to the question. Mr CAIN (Premier)-I shall retain my good humour I shall not be distracted by sexist or extremist remarks. I shall retain my moderate, restrained-- Honourable members interjecting. Mr CAIN-I have all the time in the world to wait while members of the opposition parties go on like that. I have three and a half years or more left. In view of the way that the opposition parties are going, my time could be infinite-I could have forever. I repeat: if the honourable member for Ivanhoe has the numbers for the honourable member for Bennettswood, let him put them into effect. Let him do what Liberal Party members have done in Canberra. Let him do a Peacock if he thinks he is as good as he says he is in his interjection. Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-Mr Speaker, since you ruled on my last point of order the Premier has continued to debate the question. I ask you once again to bring him back to order. 1600 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Questions without Notice

The SPEAKER-Order! I uphold the point of order, but I advise the House that it is difficult for the Premier to complete his answer with the level and type of interjection that has prevailed. Mr CAIN (Premier)-The government does not intend to see the reputation and status of Victorian universities devalued by fly-by-night operations. The government's policy, in cooperation with the Federal government, has led to Victoria having the best higher education facilities in this country. More students go from secondary school to higher education in Victoria than in any other State. The government is proud of that and intends to continue policies that will ensure that that happens. The government does not support the proposal to establish a branch of the Tasman University in Melbourne. The government is not convinced that private universities can provide better education than the excellent public universities existing today. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! I ask Ministers and frontbench members of the National Party to cease their attempts to conduct a debate across the Chamber while the Premier is completing his answer. Mr CAIN-Again it is the empty vessel syndrome. The Bond University is already looking for financial assistance from the Queensland government even before the first students have walked through the doors. The champions of these philosophies-the new right champions of the free market-are champions just so long as they are making money. That is all these people are concerned about. As soon as the going gets tough, they seek money from the public purse. Of course that is not a new philosophy of those people now running the Liberal Party; they unashamedly admit it. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! It is now more than 8 minutes since the Premier commenced his answer. A significant part of that time has been consumed by interjections, distractions and consideration of points of order. I ask honourable members to show some self-control to enable the Premier to complete his answer. In particular, I ask the honourable member for Ivanhoe and the honourable member for Berwick to cease interjecting. Mr CAIN-I assure the House that the government has no intention of throwing any money at this proposed Tasman University. If the university gets going, the government believes it should not receive funds from the public purse. It would be operating under false pretences ifit called itself a private university in Victoria. I hope that view is subscribed to by honourable members opposite when they take the time to stop and think instead ofjust shouting, as they do. The sorry saga of the Bond University ought to be a salutary lesson to the Michael Porters of this world who go around espousing such things. He is an example of the so-called new right thinker, if that is not a contradiction in terms, who has persuaded private speculators to back the proposed university. The government will not devalue education in Victoria by having anything to do with that proposal. When all the nonsense that the opposition parties have gone on with over the past 9 minutes has receded, they should stop and think about their position. The government will not be listening to the new right and people such as Peter Boyle, who are now telling honourable members opposite that they do not have a place if they are concerned about social issues. This matter resolves around the conflict of people concerned about Questions without Notice 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1601 social issues and those who are not. The people not concerned about these things are the ones running the opposition parties.

TRICONTINENTAL CORPORATION LTD Mr KENNETT (Leader of the Opposition)-Will the Treasurer assure the House that he has full confidence in Mr lan J ohns, the Managing Director of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd; if not, will he require Mr J ohns to stand aside pending the completion of the investigation by the National Companies and Securities Commission? Mr JOLLY (Treasurer)-No wonder he is the longest serving Leader of the Opposition in Australia! He certainly has no understanding of the structures that exist in Victoria. The appointments to Tricontinental Corporation Ltd are certainly not made by me; in this case they were made by the board of the Tricontinental merchant bank. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand any structures. His experience in the private sector is with an advertising agency and two galahs-that is the extent of it. It appears he has a few more galahs behind him, judging from their behaviour today. As I said in my opening answer to the moonlighter in this place, the honourable member for Brighton, allegations had been made by Ben Hills in respect of a conflict of interest. I said also that the advice I received was that Mallesons had given lepl advice that no conflict of interest existed and that there was no breach of the Comparues (Victoria) Code. Obviously, I, along with others, will examine the Herald article today and I shall get a detailed report from the Chief Executive of State Bank Victoria on this matter.

GRAMPIANS Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-Following the tabling yesterday in Parliament of a petition bearing approximately 11 000 signatures opposing changes to the names in the Grampians, will the Minister for Tourism assure the House that his unpopular push to rename the Grampians Guriwurd is not part of a hidden agenda to hand over the area to people who may claim to be traditional owners and then lease it back, as is the case with Ayers Rock? Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism)-I am surprised; I should have thought that the Ayers Rock exercise was seen as successful by all Australians. From the Australians I speak with, I believe it is generally regarded as an admirable initiative. I should have thought that even the Deputy Leader of the National Party would have shared with the rest of Australia a sense that, at the end of the bicentennial celebrations, we had not done much for the indigenous population of this country and that it was about time we did. That view is shared generally throughout the community and has led to a much higher degree of interest in Aboriginal culture and history. Mr Elder interjected. Mr CRABB-I didn't catch that one, do you want to try again? Mr Elder-Give them the money to finish Brambuck Cultural Centre! Mr CRABB-Get the red-necks out! Where are they all! The honourable member for Ballarat North is into it, but where is the honourable member for Mildura? He has gone quiet! Australians and people from other countries are properly interested in Aboriginal cultural heritage and history. The Grampians is the most significant repository of Session 1989-52 1602 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Questions without Notice

Aboriginal history in Victoria. It is a special place with speCial characteristics and I guarantee that the government will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the Aboriginal historical ethnic characteristics of the Grampians are enhanced to the necessary extent for all the people of Australia to share.

EDUCATION SYSTEMS OF AUSTRALIA Mr MICALLEF (Springvale)-Is the Minister for Labour aware of the exploitive employment practices used by a company known as Education Systems of Australia or otherwise known as Crowell International and, if so, will the Minister indicate to the House what steps his department has taken to address this issue? Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-I am fully aware of the work practices of Crowell International or, under its trading name, Education Systems of Australia. Despite the government's best efforts the company continues to treat its workers with total contempt. The tragic aspect of its practices is that it is young workers who are being exploited. The government has been endeavouring to crack down not only on Crowell International but also on any other company that exploits young workers within the State. The government will continue to do so until it forces these companies out of business or makes them-- Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, due to the nature of the question and the answer, I believe the House needs to be assured that the matter is not sub judice and that no proceedings have commenced against the company. The SPEAKER-Order! Can the Minister advise the House of the situation? Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-This matter is not sub jUdice. The SPEAKER-Order! There is no point of order. Mr POPE-The government will ensure that action is taken against these sorts of employers until they are either forced out of business or they change their ways. Education Systems of Australia, notoriously known as Crowell International, is more adept at changing its name than its employment practices despite the efforts of the government and the employment watchdog, Job Watch. The company is currently advertising daily for trainee managers and similar managerial-like jobs, but the jobs are in fact work as door-to-door sellers of encyclopaedias. The company recruits young people in such places as Melbourne; some are as young as fifteen years of age. Those youI!g boys and girls are then taken interstate or to country destinations and they are effectively dumped at those locations. The workers must pay for their own accommodation costs; many live in caravans. The company offers what is called a guaranteed retainer scheme which provides a minimum payment of $100 a week, but that is paid only if the young people work seven days a week and up to 12 hours a day. Many employees receive nothing for their work. The company has been reported to Job Watch and also to the department, because workers have been dumped interstate without a cent in their pockets-the company uses that as an incentive to encourage the young people to work hard. Job Watch and the Department of Labour have been frustrated in their attempts to prosecute the company because of its sly use of subcontractual arrangements. By claiming its workers are not employees under Victorian industrial law, but Questions without Notice 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1603 subcontractors, the payment of award wages and the provision of award conditions have been avoided. Education Systems of Australia advertising implies a genuine job opportunity with chances of promotion to manager with the company when in reality their workers, these young people, live a dog's life. The ~overnment strongly supports a recent decision by the State Industrial Relations CommIssion to extend award coverage to people employed in the direct selling industry and it will do all it can to ensure that those laws are enforced. Job Watch, the Federal Trade Practices Commission and the Victorian government are also investigating Crowell International but, unfortunately, we have been hamstrung because of their employment practices of using subcontracting arrangements. We will continue to expose such companies as Crowell International and Education Systems of Australia that are exploiting young people in this State.

NEW WHEAT VARIETIES Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-In the light of the strange answer the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs gave on Tuesday in reply to a dorothy dix question from the honourable member for Bendigo West about new wheat varieties, is it a fact that the smaller wheat harvest in the 1988-89 year will result in there being $200 000 less in grower contributions to wheat research? If so, what action will the Minister take to maintain wheat research funding so that Victoria will really discover a new variety like Rosella, which, contrary to the answer the Minister gave, was in fact bred in New South Wales? Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-I note that this is the first question from the honourable member for Ripon on the Issue of agriculture for many months. It is interesting that he should speak about ~in and the wheat harvest because I have already told the House that when I was In Horsham last Friday I was told by wheat growers of increasing disillusionment with members on the opposite side because of the way they have handled the whole issue of the future directlon of the wheat industry. They were appalled at the way the national and State opposition parties have not been able to come to a firm decision about the future of this industry. The wheat industry is vital to this State. It is valued at some $500 million annUally. The government has a clear view about all of the agricultural industries in this State. That is not the case on the opposite side and grain growers are highly disillusioned with the response of Opposition members. They do not know where they stand on this issue. Coalition members of the Federal Parliament have crossed the floor on the issue of wheat marketing arrangements. I gave notice yesterday that I would introduce a Bill on wheat marketing arrangements. It is a vital industry and the government understands the link between research and productivity gains in agriculture. I have announced in this House and publicly the need to review the total allocation for research in agriculture. Some $40 million is allocated by my department annually for research and increasingly' there will be more contributions from-- Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Minister has been speaking for some time . The question actually related to statements he made about a wheat variety named Rosella. The only point of contact with the question so far is that the Minister's face is red. The SPEAKER-Order! The point of the question from the honourable member for Ripon, as I heard it, related primarily to the level of funding for wheat research. 1604 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Petitions

My understanding of the Minister's reply is that he is addressing that question. There is no point of order. Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-The honourable member for Brighton does not like to hear the answer; that is why he seeks to raise a point of order. Clearly the government knows where it is going with respect to agricultural industries. I have already announced a wide-ranging review of agricultural research. As I said before the point of order was raised, $40 million, almost one-third of the budget for agriculture in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, is allocated to research. The proposed changes at the national level by the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will lead to increasing research being allocated to the various industries. I indicate to all the industries involved in agriculture that the resources the government is allocating are appropriately focused to meet the needs of each of them in the decade ahead.

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

Broadmeadows hospital priority

To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Broadmeadows do respectfully showeth the critical need for a community hospital within the municipality of Broadmeadows. We assert that the needs of Broadmeadows supersede the needs of many other hospital developments with higher priorities in the hospital expansion plan for Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that the priority plan be immediately reviewed and that Broadmeadows priority be raised to accord with the evidence in the case which has now been presented. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Seitz (1281 signatures)

Mornington Bowling Club

To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens ofthe State of Victoria sheweth: That we are gravely concerned at the decision of the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands that the Mornington Bowling Club Inc" relocate off the foreshore reserve in the Esplanade, in ten years time. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government take immediate action to rescind this direction which will cause considerable distress and expense to the members of the Mornington Bowling Club Inc. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Cooper (80 signatures) Social Development Committee 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1605

Police presence in Churchill To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AsSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED: The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens showeth concern for decreased police services in the Churchill subdistrict: Your petitioners therefore pray that: I. After hours availability for local police be restored immediately and that; 2. The complement of staff be increased to twelve; and 3. Adequate permanent accommodation be provided. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Hamilton (250 signatures) It was ordered that the petitions be laid on the table.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CompaDion animals Dr VAUGHAN (Clayton) presented a report from the Social Development Committee on the role and welfare of companion animals in society; together with appendices, extracts from the proceedings of the committee and minority reports. It was ordered that they be laid on the table and be printed.

PAPER The following paper, pursuant to the direction of an Act of Parliament, was laid on the table by the Clerk: Accounting Standards Review Board-Report for the year 1987-88.

NOTICE OF MOTION Mr McCUTCHEON (Attorney-General)-This mornin$ I gave notice of a contingent notice of motion with respect to the Crimes Legtslation (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. I now do not intend to proceed with the notice of motion standing in my name and I ask that it be taken off the Notice Paper.

TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO-CENSURE OF MINISTER Mr BROWN (Gippsland West)-I move: That this House condemns the government and the Minister for Transport for inept and gross mismanagement of the transport portfolio, includina public transport, and notes with concern the Minister's continuing subservience to left-wing transport unions and the Minister's unpreparedness to address the continuing fundamental problems in his portfolio. Only two days ago a Bill was debated in this House that was a public admission of failure by the government of its handling of the transport portfolio. The Transport (Amendment) Bill provides for the merging of the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the State Transport Authority into one entity, and the Road Construction Authority and the Road Traffic Authority into another entity. Through the Bill the government 1606 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister reverts to the position it inherited when the previous Liberal government lost office in 1982. In 1982 the government was elected on a promise of fixing up transport in this State, and it is fair to say that it obtained widespread support from the community, which translated into votes, on the basis of that undertaking. The government turned transport on its head soon after it became the government of the day. It created the dismal failure of the entities of the dual and split Metropolitan Transit Authority and State Transport Authority and, likewise for roads, the Road Construction Authority and the Road Traffic Authority. It is now publicly on record that the government has failed dismally in every respect, and in this debate the Opposition will set out, chapter and verse, where the government has failed in transport. It is a scandal of major proportions, particularly in relation to the thousands of millions of dollars actually squandered by the government and in what has proven to be its mismanagement of public transport. I am prepared to table a document that is a record of trains that ran on 5 January 1978. I admit that this is a rare exception, but on that day, under the former Liberal government, 99·54 per cent of all suburban electric trains arriving at Flinders Street Station ran on time. The only late train that day was the Pakenham train to Flinders Street. A decade later, after thousands of millions of dollars have been injected into the system, the public transport annual loss has been quadrupled from Just more than $300 million to $1200 million annually. That amount is, effectively, going down the drain. The government may as well have racked up the cash in $50 and $100 notes, put it out in front of Parliament House and put a match to it. At least that way people would have been able actually to see where their money was going; but the Labor Party's gross and incompetent mismanagement displayed in the seven years it has been in government is nowhere more clearly evidenced than in the transport portfolio. Mr Russel Ingersoll was brought in to fix up the mess. That was the government's second attempt, because in 1983 it totally restructured the transport and road management systems via new Acts of Parliament and, indeed, set up new corporate entities which, as I have said, have proven to be dismal failures. Only three years ago, acknowledging that its first attempt to fix things up-costing thousands of millions of dollars-had failed, the government brought in a man whom, I must say-and I have stated this before publicly-did have the ability, the competence and, more importantly, the desire to fix things up. Russel Ingersoll was hired by the government on the premise that he would be backed to the hilt, that he would be supported in making the necessary changes to fix up the transport system in this State, but when he reached the stage of having determined exactly what needed to be done, which is primarily what is documented in the Liberal Party policy for transport, the government stabbed him in the back. It pulled the rug out from under him and that episode involved three people, one of whom was the Premier himself. He established a subcommittee of caucus and was one of the three Ministers on it. The Premier headed up that transport subcommittee effectively to take over from the then Minister for Transport, "Snappy Tom", and in fact three people, including the Premier, took the matter out of the control of the Minister of the day and, effectively, away from the control of Russel Ingersoll. Of course, Mr Ingersoll then resigned, and that was a catastrophe for public transport in Victoria. The resignation of Mr Ingersoll was followed by the resignations of a large number of senior transport Ministry staff. Two extremely senior personnel who were appointed Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1607 by the Labor government, Mr John Collins and Dr Stewart Joy, also resigned in May of the same year. In 1985-86 almost 90 managers left the MInistry of Transport. It included the virtual exodus of the corporate management team of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Other notable departures included people such as-- Mr Gavin interjected. Mr BROWN-It is not a matter of being better off. Those personnel were appointed with a total commitment to fix up public transport. They were hired by the Labor government with the objective, in the main, of fixing up public transport. They had a burning desire to help the Labor government to fix up the mess it had created. They had no choice but to seek employment elsewhere because, as in the case of Russel Ingersoll, the rug was pulled out from underneath them. Another notable departure was Mr Alan Reiher, who was the Director-General of the Ministry of Transport. He was an excellent and competent operator. The Labor government effectively forced him out and, as honourable members are aware, he obtained employment in the United States of America. Other senior personnel to leave the Ministry included Mr Peter Wade; Mr Lynn Strouse, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Metropolitan Transit Authority; Mr Tom Russell, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Road Construction Authority; Mr Smith of the Road Traffic Authority; and, Mr Kevin Shea, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Road Traffic Authority, was transferred to the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The list goes on. As I said, there were 90 departures from the most senior ranks of the Ministry over a very short period. One would assume that the Minister of the day at least would have had the capacity to rule the roost. However, I shall quote from a letter that was sent by the then Minister-the current Minister for Planning and Environment-to the honourable member for Derrimut, who had written to the Minister outlining the problems in his electorate because of lack of public transport and expressing the urgent need for articulated buses to service his constituents. The then Minister for Transport wrote back in these terms: Dear David, I refer to your letter of 18 January in which you conveyed the disappointment oflocal groups regarding the allocation of articulated buses and your request for a meeting to discuss this and public transport issues. This is the Minister of the day writing to one of his colleagues in the Labor Party. The letter continues: I do not feel a meeting to discuss articulated buses would serve any purpose other than to reiterate what you already know. This is the part that honourable members should note: I personally wished to see these buses go into your area and all possible efforts at the Ministry and the MTA were taken to achieve this. Unfortunately, the position of the Trades Hall Council and the transport unions on this matter prevented this much needed transport improvement. What a damning indictment of any Minister, to put such things in writin~! Regardless of what the then Minister wanted to do, the unions had dictated that It would not happen and, therefore, the move did not go ahead. What a scandalous situation in a supposed democracy when the Minister of the day does not run his portfolio! I shall outline during the debate how that tragic state of affairs continues today with the current Minister for Transport who, as the motion states, is subservient to left­ wing transport unions. There is no doubt that that is the case. I became Opposition spokesman for transport in 1985. As soon as the annual report was released I highlighted the fact that Victorian transport had suffered the greatest 1608 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister financial loss in its history. I have had the displeasure of issuing almost identical press releases every year since. Every year the government has spent more of taxpayers funds in running public transport in Victoria. Under the current Minister for Transport, Victoria will again have its worst public transport loss on record. The Minister is supposed to look after the interests of the taxpayers as well as commuters. Surely the people who foot the bill should expect the Minister to act in their best interests. At present public transport loses some $3 million every day of the year. Victorians lose $2000 a minute under these idiots who are supposed to be efficiently running the transport system. A loss of $2000 a minute would bring any enterprise to its knees in a short period, but that is not so with the Victorian government. Behind the government of Victoria stand the long-suffering taxpayers. They have suffered a merciless onslaught by the government, as evidenced by its transport record. In addition to problems involving transport losses and voluminous amounts of money being pumped into the system on a continual basis, there have been continual disruptive and substantial strikes since the Labor government has been in office. The Minister for Transport took on this portfolio at the height of the second longest train strike the State has experienced. Unfortunately, that strike was held just before Christmas 1987. The Victorian community was brought to its knees because train services were not available in the metropolitan area. In addition to the fact that hundreds of thousands of commuters were unable to use trains to travel to and from work over that two-week period, the roads, to which the government has given such a pathetic priority, were more congested than normal. It was not only the South­ Eastern-Mulgrave Freeway connecting car park that was a horror at that time; all roads in the metropolitan area were choked. The government is supposed to have a close working relationship with the unions. At least that was its claim when in opposition; the Labor Party told the Victorian public it should vote for it because of its close working relationship with the unions. It untruthfully claimed that there would be a lessening of disputes not only in transport but also across the board. All honourable members would be aware of the continuing problems faced by the former Minister for Transport. Wheels were actually falling off trains. Some wheels were split and were detected just in time to prevent a major catastrophe. There was a wheel flange wear crisis whereby the government did not know that the wheels on 30 trains had worn to such an extent that they were actually cutting into the tracks. It was through good fortune, not good management, that a major disaster, involving perhaps hundreds of patrons who could have been killed or injured, did not occur as a result of the government's incompetence. Another debacle was the so-called early retirement scheme. In 1985 the government woke up to the fact that its policies were leading to the Victorian economy going down the drain. I give a former Minister of Transport, now the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, credit at least to this extent: towards the end of his time as the Minister for Transport he did try to reduce what was an ongoing problem, unlike the present Minister for Transport. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services, when the Minister of Transport, borrowed approximately $87 million for an early retirement scheme that would remove staff from the work force. The proposal was to remove 2400 people over a period of approximately eighteen months, and that was achieved. That $87 million of borrowed money is still accruing interest and has not been repaid, so the removal of those 2400 employees was done at great cost to the community. However, the unions became very active and they Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1609 insisted that those people who had taken the early retirement scheme had to be replaced numerically-they were not necessarily to be the same people. In many cases the same people were re-employed as consultants at a much higher cost. Those people got a golden handshake and in many cases were re-employed! On top of that, because of union pressure, an extra 700 employees were added to the system. What a low ebb in public transport! Approximately $140 million overall was borrowed by the government for an early retirement scheme that failed dismally. The Ministry of Transport does not pay its accounts on time. I receive continual representations on this point. I am aware that the Premier circulated a memorandum stating that the prompt payment of accounts was a government undertaking. Indeed, an internal memorandum was sent to the transport agencies directing them to pay their accounts on time. The gross and inept mismanagement of those transport agencies has meant that they do not pay their accounts on time and some creditors have to chase up those accounts for lengthy periods. Honourable members are aware of the debacle when V/Line obtained 500 football tickets for the Victorian Football League grand final. How that agency obtained 500 grand final tickets is a story in itself, but the point I make is that V/Line lost approximately $80 000 through that exercise. Only a lunatic would be given 500 grand final tickets, sell those tickets and make a loss on the whole deal. It defies logic that the management of that agency is so inept that it could lose money on the purchase of grand final tickets, but that is on the record. In the past I have highlighted the fact that to avoid complying with the directions of the Premier the transport agencies hire and lease cars so that the total number of cars controlled by the agencies is within the guidelines. In one instance the Ministry paid almost $20 000 in hire fees for the hire of a motor vehicle for 23 months. The government actually makes a profit out of the purchase of government cars because it does not pay sales tax and when they sell government vehicles they often sell them for more than they paid for them. In this instance, the Metropolitan Transit Authority paid nearly $20 000 to hire a vehicle for 23 months. V/Line paid almost $16 000 to hire a 6-cylinder sedan for four months and $78 400 to hire eleven 6-cylinder sedans for less than two years. That is gross incompetence and mismanagement. It is cl tragic tale, and unfortunately this incompetence is at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayers. I remind honourable members that the examples I have given today are probleins directly associated with the Labor government and not one of the issues can be traced back to the former Liberal government. These fools decided to extend the rail network to Webb Dock! I am now in possession of a letter from the Managing Director of V/Line, Keith Fitzmaurice, and I shall quote from it extensively. The letter to the former Minister for Transport states: The purpose of this letter is to acquaint you with the circumstances surrounding the Webb Dock rail project and to request early resolution of the financial responsibilities for the project. The issue is one of substance, in that the project cost will be in the order of $20 million incurring finance charges of $2·95 million per annum plus a repayment of principal over a ten year period. The total liability is thus some $4·95 million per annum. . The Minister's most senior officer wrote in those terms about a total liability of just on $5 million a year! The letter further states: When Cabinet decided to undertake the project in 1983 with funding from the State Development Program, the question of financial responsibilities was not resolved. The project was sponsored by the Port of Melbourne Authority in the face of opposition from the ST A and, I understand, staff within the 1610 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister

Ministry of Transport. The PMA's proposal suggested that the funding should be the responsibility of the STA. Among other comments he made in that correspondence, Mr Fitzmaurice said: As indicated above, V/Line and its predecessor have long opposed the project which does not meet our investment appraisal criteria and is not in conformity with our statutory charter. I have only recently obtained that correspondence. What a damning indictment of the ~overnment it is in that, having been told those matters by the most senior bureaucrat In the State Transport Authority, the government went ahead with the Webb Dock proposal! The Auditor-General's report released this week highlights the dismal failure at Webb Dock. Shortly I shall quote what the Auditor-General had to say. The stage was then reached when the present Minister for Transport was appointed to the portfolio at the height of a long-running transport strike-the longest strike in 37 years. He was brought in when the crisis was at its worst, when Cabinet was concerned at the damage that was being done to the standing of the government, and when the former Minister-"Snappy Tom"-had to be dropped. It was not a question of "if", but "how". The present Minister was appointed, and there is no doubt that he was brought in, as the government hoped, to rectify the problem. The real issue involving that strike was the fact that approximately 400 train guards had been identified as being surplus to requirements. The government had stated that, through the former Minister for Transport, the guards were to be removed. I quote what the present Minister said when he first came to that portfolio. An article in the Melbourne Sun of 16 December 1987 stated: The new Transport Minister, Mr Kennan, yesterday took a tough stand against striking rail guards as talks again failed to solve Victoria's longest rail strike in 37 years. About 730 rail workers were stood down yesterday and another 700 more will lose their wages from today,just nine days before Christmas. But the strike will not spread to affect country trains at this stage. The article further stated: Both sides were insisting they had the public's long-term interests at heart yesterday. Both also claimed they had the support of the people. Yet city retailers were fuming as their vital peak trading period was eroded even further. And commuters battled the suffocating heat in over-crowded buses, while motorists sweated it out in the now-customary traffic jams. Giving his first press conference in his tough new role, Mr Kennan was resolute-the government would not give an inch and the unions would be the ones who must buckle. The public, he said, support the government's stand. "It's no good continuing to put off the evil day. We will not walk away. We are not prepared to give way from the present position we have stated," Mr Kennan said. It was "unfortunate" that the dispute was so close to Christmas, he said, but it was an issue that had to be tackled once and for all. To that I say, "Hear, hear!" I support the Minister unreservedly in that objective. As the spokesman for transport at the time, I made public utterances along those lines. Ofcourse the system was on its knees; it was brought to a standstill by the government, but at least the Minister was given a charter and he said, "I will stand firm; I will be resolute; the public expects action and I will give the public action". I thought that at least we had a Minister who would remedy the situation. Mr Jasper-Who said that? Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1611

Mr BROWN~ The present Minister for Transport. The Age three days later reported: The State government has, in effect, deferred the rail dispute by temporarily backing down on a key union demand. It is a matter of record, and the veil no longer hides the truth: the Minister is a puppet of the transport unions in Victoria. The main string puller is Joe Sibberas, and the Minister does as he is told. The day he became the Minister for Transport and made the public utterances that, "I will be resolute and act in the interests of Victoria", he was told by Joe Sibberas and others, "You will damn well do as you are told". The outcome was that he did as he was told. Three days later the Minister announced that there would be a cooling-off period and that the guards may not be dismissed. As we all know, not one guard has been dismissed. The Minister is spending millions of dollars putting doors in the trains from end to end to enable the guards to walk through, if they are game. They will be known as roving conductors. Problems occur on our public transport system-particularly trains-every day and night of the week. It will continue to happen with the roving guards on the trains. The guards cannot secure the system. It is unfair to expect them to secure the system; I feel sorry for them. They should be meaningfully employed where they are of value in the transport system. I understand a number of Americans are coming to Victoria to organise vigilante groups to protect train travellers. Those organisations will not be trained or equipped; nor will they have the power of arrest to secure our transport system. It is an outrage! The only way to secure the public transport system and make it safe day and night for all, partIcularly for our young and our women, is to have police in large numbers on the trains. The Police Force will be expanded in number to take over that crucial role, when the Liberal Party is elected to government. On the first day he came into the job, the Minister said, "On this issue I will be resolute", yet he continues to stay in that job. It is beyond a joke. If we look at what is happening under the Minister and at the government's performance targets, it will be noted that the majority of them are not achieved. The last annual report of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the system that moves the vast bulk of Victorians who travel by public transport around Melbourne, shows the proposed scheduled seating kilometres per passenger and the target for 1987-88 was 10304 of which the government achieved 10 128. It does not achieve its objectives on cancellations or on "on time" running. On its deficit and on cost recovery, it does not achieve its objectives. The list goes on and on. On freight handling, the objective is not achieved. Operating expenditure was worse than budgeted; operating revenue, less than budgeted for; passengers carried, fewer than budgeted for; operating deficit, larger than budgeted for. It goes on and on. It matters not whether we are talking about the operating costs per kilometre, passenger revenue per passenger kilometre or whether we are talking about freight revenue per tonne kilometre, passengers or freight, the horror story goes on and on. That is the point I am making in this debate. Here is a government with yet another failed transport Minister, number 3 in seven years, who is wasting $3 million of our money a day, who is squandering $2000 a minute just in one area-transport. If he were fixing it up, I would praise him for any undertaking he was prepared to implement, but the truth is that the situation is getting worse by the day. Six months ago he claimed that there had been a major reversal. Effectively he was saying, "We have cut the loss in half". When I heard this on 3AW early one morning 1612 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister

I thought: they have cut the loss in half as a result of him coming in as Minister. What have they done? He was claiming that the debt, thousands of millions of dollars that was borrowed in transport, all of a sudden had disappeared. There was no debt any more. Of course, what happened was the debt was transferred out of the transport budget over to the Treasury budget. In fact that money, thousands of millions of dollars, was borrowed and has not been repaid. It was borrowed for public transport and remains a millstone around the neck of every taxpayer and even his or her children and grandchildren. That is the truth. The loss in public transport has not been halved. The borrowings have just been moved into another area of government. Mr Perrin-Fiddling the books. Mr BROWN-Exactly. Modem mOl\ey accounting practice, as the Treasurer would say. The honourable member for Bulleen says fiddling the books. Whether it is called shonky accounting practices or straight out deceit, I do not mind. However, the government is trying to hide the truth from the public. As was admitted by one of the most senior bureaucrats at the Estimates Committee a month ago, when one adds together the cost of servicing the money that the Labor government has borrowed to the amount of money it loses each year, the cost far exceeds in total $1000 million a year, and that is under a Minister who was brought in to fix it up. What was the Auditor-General saying in the report released this week? This is not a Liberal Party-National Party quote. This is the Auditor-General talking about having investigated this Minister's irresponsible management practices. Under the heading "Key findings" the report states: Centralisation of transport debt has removed a significant cost from transport operations. That is just what I have said. It continues: The refurbishment of the Banana Alley vaults was completed 35 months behind schedule with cost overruns of$2·77 million. . Mr Jasper interjected. Mr BROWN-And they closed it down! Not only did they throwaway all that money, but also they took three years longer to build it and then closed it down. That is another example of the government's modem money management practices­ which show how incompetent the government is. The Webb Dock rail link project cost more than $20 million to build, yet it is significantly under-utilised. I shall quote further from the Auditor-General's report: Benefits from the abolition of private vehicle registration renewal fees may flow to the business community contrary to government policy. Cancellation ofa sublease at 222 Exhibition Street has cost taxpayers in excess of$795 000 in dead rent and an estimated $300 000 if certain fitouts cannot be used by new tenants. That is one small project that the government is involved in-but taxpayers can say goodnight to yet another $1 million. The government ought to make a public exhibition of it! That money should be put in a barrow in $100 notes and lit with a match in front of television cameras. At least the people of Victoria would see it going up in smoke. The money is going up in smoke but not before taxpayers eyes. The Auditor-General further states: System for collection of transport accident charges is open to abuse ... That situation is worsening every day. The Auditor-General goes on to say: In my opinion, until financing costs are reported by the various transport authorities, nominally or otherwise, . the standard of disclosure remains less than adequate and falls far short of the standards envisaged by the Annual Reporting Act and regulations and the government commitment to program budgeting. Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1613

The Auditor-General is saying to the government: "What you have done is wrong, and you should address that. Financing costs should be incorporated into your accounts so that you will be fully accountable for the money that you are squandering". I shall examine what the Auditor-General says about special projects: In 1987-88, this appropriation was fully expended on projects approved by the Minister for Transport. Audit's review of this expenditure indicated that the role and nature of this appropriation had not been defined and guidelines had not been developed to evaluate such projects. The Auditor-General then highlights the fact that the government is spending money without guidelines for proper evaluation. Is it reasonable and in the public interest to implement programs that have not been properly evaluated? I shall quote again from the Auditor-General's report concerning the Banana Alley project: In June 1986 the responsibility for the Banana Alley project was transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the MT A with the clear direction that the project be completed in a timely and cost efficient manner taking into account that the project was already six months behind schedule. The project was eventually finalised in November 1988 at a total cost of$4·5 million, $2·7 million above the original cost estimate, and 35 months behind the original target completion date. The Ministry of Transport commenced the project, but it went down the gurgler, together with taxpayers' money. Because the project was six months behind schedule, the Ministry washed its hands of it, flicked it over to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and said, "You fix it!" It took another three years to complete the project. Another Labor Party initiative! I regret it is not possible for all 4 million Victorians to come into the House and listen to examples of the government's incompetent administration and to how this incompetent Minister is squandering their money. For every minute that people sit in the Public Gallery, Victoria loses $2000 in the area of transport. For most people who sit in the Public Gallery, $2000 is a fortune; yet $2000 is being burned every minute by the government. In other areas besides transport the government throws away hundreds of millions of dollars, but I am quoting facts only in relation to transport. The Auditor-General examined the Ministry's involvement in the Hong Kong joint venture. The idiots opposite decided to make a few hundred million dollars in a joint venture in Hong Kong. The government cannot run public transport in Victoria! Despite being unable to make trains and trams run on time, the Ministry tendered for a $200 million project in Hong Kong, unbelievable though that sounds. The Auditor­ General states: The MT A was a participant in a joint venture consortium to design, construct and maintain a light rail transit system in the North Western New Territories of Hong Kong. I have visited that area and it is very beautiful. Further: The project is now complete and the system is fully operational ... Due to operational and industrial problems 30 of the 70 light rail vehicles required for the Hong Kong system had to be assembled in Queensland. In Joh country! What a damning indictment of both the Minister and his predecessor that is! The contract to build those light rail vehicles, or trams, in Victoria no doubt was undertaken to provide employment for Victorians! But those Ministers were so incompetent, the contract was so behind schedule and so much money was lost that the then Bjelke-Petersen government had to come to the rescue and build half of the units under the contract. Unbelievable! No doubt the reason for the transfer was that in Queensland things get done. At least in Queensland the vehicles were built on time and to budget-unlike the position in Victoria, even though the government claims to have a close working relationship with the unions. 1614 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister

Although the Auditor-General gives a detailed explanation of what occurred, in a nutshell he says that the project made virtually no money at all and that it ran into trouble almost from the day it commenced. If the government cannot run its own State successfully, it should not export its problems to Hong Kong. Hong Kong has enough problems of its own without the incompetent Ministry of Transport meddling in its affairs. The Auditor-General examined the Webb Dock rail link project. He recommended that: ... the financial arrangements and organisational responsibilities for the rail sidings located on PMA land be formalised as soon as possible; and in view of the substantial investment in the development ofWebb Dock and the associated rail link, the PMA in conjuction with the STA should take action to maximise the utilisation of these facilities. In a nutshell, the Auditor-General highlights the fact that the project was never financially feasible. It has cost Victorian taxpayers $20 million and is grossly under­ utilised. It is another example of a Labor Party initiative gone wrong, thought of by so-called whiz-kids who are grossly incompetent. Another matter the Auditor-General examined concerns the loss on a commercial contract by the Port of Melbourne Authority, which is under the direct control of the Minister: In July 1986 the PMA entered into a contract with the Australian Department of Defence for the manufacture of two aluminium frigate superstructure modules. The modules were constructed at the PMA's Williamstown workshop and were completed in 1987-88 at a total cost of$I·5 million. That does not sound too bad so far. Further: The PMA incurred a loss of$842 000 from undertaking this commercial contract. In other words, although the contract was worth $1·5 million, the Port of Melbourne Authority lost $842 000 on it. Management's response to the Auditor-General's comments is a lulu, a real screamer: The PMA entered into this contract on a "direct cost" basis so as to utilise labour that would otherwise have been under-utilised. In other words, the attitude taken by the authority was that it was better off to have those blokes that it did not need doing something, even if it lost a fortune doing it, than having them hanging around doing nothing. As quoted in the Auditor-General's report, the authority's management also stated: The PMA covered its direct costs and made a contribution to fixed costs from this contract ... In financial terms ... Hear this! The Port of Melbourne Authority took on a project for $1·5 million and it lost $842 OOO! The report states that the authority believed: In financial terms the authority was better offby taking on the work than it would have been by rejecting it. That is unbelievable! The authority said it was better off losing almost $1 million than it would have been if it had not taken on the work. A statement of a lunatic was given to the Auditor-General and it has ended up in his report. Of course, it is now a matter of the public making its own decision about that fact. I could continue to talk at great length about the Auditor-General's report. It is very timely, and I should do so because the fact is that the report, which was tabled in Parliament this week, is about the recent activities of the Ministry of Transport under the present Minister. He has been the Minister for Transport for quite some time. Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1615

The Auditor-General examined a facility that would accommodate 1000 employees that was sought by the Ministry of Transport, which would include the Transport Accident Commission staff, and activities related to the road safety corporate services and the traffic management divisions of the Road Traffic Authority. With the consent of the Minister for Transport and the Treasurer, a lease agreement was signed for accommodation at 222 Exhibition Street, Melbourne. I shall quote directly from the Auditor-General's report: As a consequence ofRTA's decision not to proceed with the occupation of 222 Exhibition Street ... That is, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasurer: ... it has incurred rental expenses of$485 000. The authority incurred expenses totalling $485 000 to rent a place it did not occupy. The amount was not $48 000; it cost $485 000 to rent a place that the authority did not need or want. It did not occupy the premises. What a scandalous indictment that is! The situation became worse, though. In December 1988 the Department of Property and Services took over the Road Traffic Authority's sublease on the premises and, since that date, has incurred dead rent of more than $310 000. The RTA also incurred fitting costs totalling $1·8 million for which no benefit has been derived. I shall quote directly from the Auditor-General's report: The R T A also incurred fit-out costs totalling $1·8 million, for which no benefit has been derived. What does it take for this Minister for Transport to wake up to the fact that his role is to look after the interests of Victorians, rather than embarking on a self-promotional exercise of appeasing the unions, regardless of the cost, in an endeavour to remove the Premier of Victoria and take over his role? Mr Perrin-He likes barbecues. Mr BROWN-He loves barbecues. I have not yet had an undertaking from him, but I have indicated a couple of times when he has been planning barbecues­ particularly sausage sizzles-at the taxpayers expense, that he should-and, pn his own admission, he should-have the courtesy of inviting me; in fact, I deem it as a right. Mr Perrin-You wouldn't want a socialist sausage, would you? Mr BROWN-No, but the Minister and I might have a really good time at a sizzle. Only the future will prove that. The Auditor-General's report states: In audit opinion, the cancellation of the RTA sublease has cost taxpayers in excess of$795 000 in dead rent. In addition there is a further potential cost of $300 000 as not all the services included in the fit-out are likely to be used by new tenants. What a damnin~ indictment! I have quoted only' in part from a voluminous document that highlights In more than 300 pages the faIlings of this government in transport and, in fact, in all other areas of government administration. . Of course, as part of his subservience to these left-wing unions, the canker upon our society in Victoria, the Minister plans to take further action. I am a $feat supporter of unions and of unionists, many thousands of whom vote for me In my electorate. However, I detest it when these unions finally become controlled by ideologues of the left. Thankfully, that is not the case in all unions. There are some unions in this State that act in a very responsible manner in the interests of their constituent body and their members. But there are some unions in this State, led by fools, idiots and 1616 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister ideologues of a similar philosophy to that of the present Minister for Transport. He has a close, intimate, personal working relationship with some of these union leaders. That is well known; it is on the public record. I do not mind who the Minister's friends are, but it is all for one purpose which, as the honourable member for Berwick points out quite rightly, is to ultimately achieve his ambition. His ambition is not to run transport or the Ministry of Transport in the interests of either the taxpayers or the commuters. Train cancellations are now so frequent on a daily basis in Victoria that the information on them is kept secrect. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mr BROWN-That is probably the case, but the Minister should busy himself with some of these issues of concern, because they are of tremendous concern to the community. To further appease unions, the Minister agreed to install, again at a cost of millions of dollars, such things as kerbing and channelling on the roadway at the right-hand side of the motor vehicle-in other words, in the middle of the road. He has agreed to spend more than $5 million over the next twelve months to narrow the roadways in Melbourne. The reason for that is to give trams even more right of way. Therefore, in twelve months' time, if there is a traffic jam, a breakdown or an accident, there is no way in which one will be able to go around such a scene on any of Melbourne's busy roads. At present, one is able to go around a tram track, with the proviso that a tram is not travelling down the track and one does not hold up a tram. That is fair enough. The Liberal Party is a very strong supporter of trams and their continuance. In fact, the incoming Liberal government will ensure that tram services are upgraded. However, it is ludicrous to say that trams are so sacrosanct that, even if there is no tram on the tram track, the driver of a vehicle should not dare to put a wheel on the track. That is this government's thinking. Again, it is all about appeasing the unions. The Liberal Party says, as approximately 15 per cent of Victorians travel regularly on public transport, that that facility and amenity should be very much upgraded, continued and supported. The incoming Liberal government will do that. However, the Liberal Party also says that as some 85 per cent of Victorians use their private motor vehicles they should at least be given some consideration by this Minister, who ~ves them no consideration at present. He intends to narrow the major roads leading In and out of the centre of Melbourne. It is an unbelievable action by the Minister that he should disadvantage 85 per cent of commuters travelling in and out of Melbourne every day of the week for the benefit of the other 15 per cent. Another responsibility of this Minister-although he could not care less about it and pays no attention to it in administering his portfolio-is that of our road system in Victoria. The government has a policy of building roads that are unsafe-against the interests of local communities and requiring local residents to put up with continuing chaos-and as pollutant as the government can make them. Who supports that? The Ministry for Planning and Environment does not; it has issued a report advising the Minister for Transport to address the problem. It has suggested that the anti­ freeway mentality of the Labor Party must be changed. The Minister is silent on that report. Perhaps during this debate he will give a response. I should like to go on for some hours today because I want to cover some of the other areas of importance in the transport folio. However, in fairness, I must leave Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1617 time for both the Minister and the spokesperson from the National Party to make contributions. I conclude by saying that the government has no commitment to fixing up transport in this State. It is conducting a continuing vendetta against the private sector. For months the government has been waging open warfare on the private bus industry in this State. The government has undertaken projects that could have been completed for a fraction of the cost if they had been undertaken by private enterprise. I could quote at length from a report in my possession that shows that the Metropolitan Transit Authority, in such areas as building, earthworks, drainage, electrical installations, track work and the construction of small buildings, could get works completed for half price simply by not using its own day labour forces. I could speak at length on areas where the Liberal Party will make savings when it wins government. It will run the same transport system better and at less cost to the taxpayer. It will expand the public transport system; everyone in Victoria, no matter where he or she lives, will continue to have public transport under a Liberal government. No-one in Victoria will have public transport taken away from them, and that is an unequivocal commitment. No-one will be sacked by a Liberal government; any reduction in the work force will be by natural attrition. A Liberal government will fix up the horror the government has created and the continuing crisis that will trundle along until the next State election, which will see the return of a Liberal government. In the interim, Victoria will have inflicted upon it the chaos created by the present Minister for Transport. The government could not appoint another Minister; for a start it would be flat out finding another Minister so bad. So far it has tried three Ministers and all have proven to be failures. No matter how it is assessed, the crisis continues. The government's objectives are not being met and the deficit continues to blowout. Staff morale is on the floor; it is abysmal. I know that from the large number of staff employed in the transport sector to whom I spea.k. With respect to the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the State Transport Authority, the government is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Those two authorities are admitted failures and the government has embarked on a totally new structure. It has turned back the clock to put in place a structure similar to that which it inherited in 1982. At that time only one service administered the rail system in Victoria, and that is what the government is returning to. The system is unsafe-ask any woman, man or young person who travels at night. It is unreliable and it is filthy. No matter on which line one travels, in many instances one cannot see out of the windows because the graffitti is so bad. Despite that, the Minister is intent only on self-promotion. In the short time available to me-and I wish I had more-I have referred to a number of the failings of the Minister and the government with regard to public transport. The motion should most certainly be agreed to by the House. Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool)-I support the motion, which seeks to condemn the government, particularly the Minister for Transport, for inept and gross mismanagement of the transport portfolio. When one reflects on the issues that impact on the public transport system in Victoria, one wonders whether those words are tough enough. Victorians are becoming accustomed to the economic mismanagement of the Cain government. One could go on about the Victorian Economic Development 1618 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister

Corporation, the Victorian Investment Corporation and WorkCare. The facts currently coming out about WorkCare are proving what the opposition parties have been saying for some time. Huge losses have been incurred by the public transport system because of inept management. One need only refer to the Auditor-General's report tabled in Parliament this week to know that. It refers in detail to some of the functions of the government and the Minister for Transport, who has the responsibility for these inefficiencies. In the 51 st Parliament he must be held responsible for the disgraceful state of affairs. Taxpayers funds are being wasted. For how long can taxpayers continually dig into their pockets? It is my view and the view of the people on this side of the House and, more importantly, the majority of Victorians, that there must be an end to the bottomless pit. The government cannot keep tapping into the pockets, wallets or purses of VIctorian taxpayers. They are being taxed to the limit. One has only to consider the level of taxation in Victoria compared with that in other States to know how Victorian taxpayers are suffering. Victorians are not only behind the eight ball with regard to the amount of tax they pay compared to other States but they are behind the eight ball compared with the transport services offered in other States. The Auditor-General's report refers to the Banana Alley saga. The project was completed almost three years behind schedule and had an overrun in costs of $2· 7 million. Honourable members should consider how taxpayers could have been helped if that money had not been wasted and had been spent on providing services for Victorians. Other States have shown that projects can be completed on time, and Queensland has taken the lead in that regard. Members of the Queensland government are often referred to as rednecks and confrontationists when it comes to dealing with unions. However, it is important to reflect on the industrial relations record in Queensland and how the government has got the State moving, especially in terms of industrial peace and harmony. As a former trade unionist-that may surprise some honourable members-I am aware that trade unions have served and still serve a useful role in the employment sector of Australia. However, unfortunately there is a select group of unions that is not furthering the cause of the employee; it IS not helping the working man who is the basis of the Australian economy. The militant and dogmatic attitudes of people who hold .senior positio~~ in ~nion~ are damaging the !rade union moyement. Some people holding senIor pOSItions In unIons seem to have httle empathy Wlth or compaSSIon for the rank and file colleagues they purport to represent. The Auditor-General's report refers to the $20 million spent on the Webb Dock rail link. The Auditor-General said the link is under-utilised. If the government invests significant capital in a project, it must ensure that the money is used efficiently and that the project will be utilised. Private enterprise would not survive if it undertook various caPItal improvements and did not pay attention to the ultimate maximum usage of the facilities. Of course the State government is not answerable in that sense because it can go back to the deep pockets and purses of the Victorian taxpayers who must underwrite the debt. The growing taxpayers burden for every man, woman and child since the Cain government came to power must be recognised. The debt is reaching frightening proportions. I take up the earlier intetjection by the honourable member for Warrandyte that one is most concerned about what this will mean for future generations of what was once a great State. It is interesting to reflect that the government used such terms as "growing together". In fact we are all growing together in debt. Unfortunately we are growing the wrong Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1619 way! Because of the issues that were highlighted by the honourable member for Gippsland West-the mismanagement and inefficiency of the government-the increased debt will have to be paid by future generations. That is an indictment of the ~overnment, which was supposed to look after ~ very people upon which it is now Imposing these enormous tax requirements. Another important issue is the lack of management expertise particularly in the transport area, such as the cancellation of the sublease of 222 Exhibition Street. The cost to the Victorian taxpayers will be $795000. What sort of assistance would that have given to the minimisation of the escalating tax responsibility placed on the Victorian community by the government? If that is not bad enough, it is now estimated that approximately $300000 of the amount spent in refurbishment cannot be used by the new tenants. One would never survive in private enterprise with those sorts of management practices because at the end of the day one must answer to one's bank manager. The Minister for Transport will have to answer to his bank managers, who are the people of Victoria, who will speak loudly at the next election and throw the government out. The honourable member for Gippsland West referred also to the tremendous changes in the transport area in recent years because of costly retirement packages that were introduced in an effort to sort out some of the earlier problems. But to a large extent although some important experienced professio1".al people were retained, many who were important to the ongoing efficiency of the Ministry were lost. They were the people who were happy to get out of the system because they were frustrated by the mismanagement and inefficiency and the sorts of criticisms that they were receiving from the public at large. I shall explain to the House one disaster that occurred in relation to the public transport system's inability to run its trains on time. Today a school group travelled to Melbourne from Warrnambool High School to visit, among other places, Parliament House. The group arrived at Parliament House 45 minutes after question time, which was to be one of the highlights of its day. The school children wanted to be here when all the Ministers and the Opposition were in the Chamber to observe the workings of Parliament. They wanted to be here at that time because it is the most interesting time when everyone IS here. What happened? The Victorian public transport system let them down. Because they arrived 45 minutes late they could not be in the House for question time. It is most appropriate that we should be debating a motion on the inefficiency of the public transport system and the incompetence and ineptness of the Minister. The public transport system appears to be runnin~ like a rudderless ship. Recently a young lady from the City ofWarrnambool was travelling from Frankston to be with her parents for the weekend. She caught the train from Frankston which was to give her 45 minutes to spare on her arrival at Flinders Street to make her way to Spencer Street to catch the train to Warrnambool. She arrived at Flinders Street 25 minutes late and she was unable to catch the Warrnambool train at Spencer Street. She had to turn around and go back to Frankston and cancel the arrangements for that weekend. These inefficiencies happen all too frequently. I am not bold enough or unreasonable enough to say that these things happen from day to day for a variety of reasons, but they happen too regularly. The system is making losses but it is easy for the government to say, "The taxpayer will pay". We have had social justice and equality of opportunity applied to a whole range of issues. The government's platform was to provide transport to the people who live in metropolitan Melbourne, but on a range of issues it does not seek to apply the user-pays principle. It is interesting that when one moves out into country Victoria 1620 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister one finds that the government wishes to apply the user-pays principle even to a humble glass of water. It is amazing that the government is not prepared to use the user-pays principle for metropolitan transport to bring it into line with the principle that it applies to country rail. The government is talking nonsense when it talks about equal opportunity. Obviously equal opportunity applies only if one happens to reside within the electorate of a Labor member, because in a lot of cases there is discrimination against the people who live outside those electorates, not only in transport matters but also in others. I direct to the attention of the Minister the petrol prices that apply in country Victoria. They are a clear example of the government's unwillingness to deal with an issue that does not affect its constituency. Country Victoria is contributing a large proportion of the $7 billion that goes to the Federal government because country people are paying up to 15 cents a litre more than their city counterparts. That is difficult to understand when the freight differential is 1·8 cents over long distances in the State. Let us say that is 2 cents; the petrol shipped from Melbourne to Mildura effectively should cost an additional 2 cents a litre, but that is not the case because country Victoria is paying 15 cents a litre more for petrol. Why does the government not apply a certain trigger price to petrol-as it does in Melbourne-in country Victoria. The government is looking after its constituents and it does not care about those who live outside its areas. Country people are contributing significantly to road funding dollars through the $7 billion that is paid to the Federal government, of which $1250 million is used for road funding. It is no wonder that our roads are disintegrating before our eyes. Apart from the argument of road fundin~, country Victoria does not have the opportunity of using the public transport that IS available in Melbourne. The majority of people in Melbourne probably do not need to use their own cars for the regular, day-to-day activity of getting to and from work. They have public transport as an alternative, whether it be trams, trains or buses. All too often we see cars each carrying one person travelling in and out of the city. I wonder why those people do not use the public system. Maybe it has something to do with the transport timetables. Anyhow, city people have the opportunity of using public transport if they wish. Country people do not have that opportunity. They must use their own vehicles to travel to and from their homes. They pay more than their fair share of transport funding through excises and taxes and that should be coming back in a higher proportion for road funding. Obviously it is not. Another practice that was commenced prior to this Minister taking on this portfolio is the sale of rolling stock in Victoria-fire sales, as we have come to know them. When the government is short of a few dollars, it sells something. One would not survive as a farmer with that sort of mentality. Ifa farmer kept selling off part of his back paddocks, eventually he would have to leave by the front gate. The government made a big song and dance about the money it made from selling its rolling stock. It did not tell us how the charges would escalate over the next five or ten years. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, within three years of selling the rolling stock the lease-back payments were more than double the amount the government received. As a person coming from a small business I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind that government action. I would not want to accept $600 million today and then have to pay back $1200 million in three years' time. That is what has happened with that government fire sale. The government is also selling off land. Some railway land has been used for commercial development by people who have had leasing arrangements with the Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1621

railways and have built their own businesses and created goodwill within those businesses on those properties. The government now wants to up-end that arrangement. It also wants to sell off or dispose of disused railway lines. We have no quarrel with a government department identifying that a certain property or piece of land is surplus to its needs and should be sold. However, some consideration should be given to the impact of that sale on people who may be involved. I direct the attention of the House to the current disgraceful proposal that the Ministry of Transport has for disused railway lines in Victoria. It is seeking to hand the land surrounding those railway lines over to the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands and the greenies for their direction in relation to the future use and management of that land. That decision might be comfortable for those who live in glass offices in Melbourne but the Minister should go to the country and talk to some of the people who will be affected by this proposal. The Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands has a disgraceful record in the management of public lands and that causes enormous problems to neighbouring farms. It is obvious that some disused railway line areas can be made into nature walks or nature areas and put to good use in the interests of conservation. However, to do that with the enormous number of kilometres of disused railway line around the State is an absolute nonsense. If the government considered making a walking track from, for example, the township of Koroit to Port Fairy and collected $5 from every walker who used that track, it would soon starve. The number of people who would use that track could be counted on one hand. When one considers the imposition of the proposal on people owning neighbouring land, the whole idea is nonsense. One anomaly of concern in the Ministry of Transport relates to people who have worked for the railways for many years and are in the extraordinary situation of owning their own homes but not the land on which those homes are situated. That land remains the property of V/Line. The situation has existed for a long time, long before the Cain government came to power. I know of one person in my electorate who worked for the railways for 33 years. He owned his own home but did not own the land. The government must ensure that there is some flexibility in its policy to allow for people caught in that astounding situation. Consideration must be given to the sale of land to those people at the Valuer-General's valuation. The government is still having problems with loss of freight revenue because of poor management and poor handling techniques. In debate on the Transport (Amendment) Bill the other night I detailed some of my experiences with freight problems. The government has gone down the wrong road. It has put on the road several rigs, each worth $200 000, to transport freight. At the same time-and I commend the government for this-three trains a day run to and from Warmambool. That is an excellent service-although it did not get students from my electorate here today on time and it did not have a buffet car today, and I should like to know why. However, it is an excellent service. V/Line could add one or two D-vans or louvre vans to the back of those trains and cart freight. It seems that the Minister would rather spend $200 000 on a road truck that runs up 'and down the highway making a nuisance of itself while leaving the V/Line rail service under-utilised. If V/Line wants to attract back some of the business that it lost through inefficiency and mismanagement it should consider attaching D-vans to passenger trains for the economic transport of freight. Many people have become frustrated with V/Line; not with the price, because V/Line has always been competitive, but with the handling of freight, the damage to freight and the loss of freight. Those problems are not acceptable in today's business community, in which V/Line is expected to compete. The business community finds 1622 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister that it can better use the private road freight system because of fewer problems and more efficient service. V/Line could capitalise on a freight service if it introduced a more efficient service. I also spoke about road safety in the debate the other night. Members of all parties agree on the need to improve road safety. Another benefit of attaching freight vans to passenger trains would be that V/Line would not need the road rigs that are creating problems with road safety. I shall mention briefly the availability of alcohol on trains, a hobbyhorse of mine. Passengers on country trains face severe problems. I can speak first hand of the problems faced on the train services to Warrnambool. They' are so bad that some people will not travel on that train on a Friday night. UntIl the young people are controlled through the provision of adequate staff to police the consumption of alcohol, serious consideration should be given to whether alcohol should continue to be provided on trains. As I have said, I am reluctant to recommend that alcohol be withdrawn from trains because many people enjoy a drink while travelling on the train and they alight at their destination and go about their business. It would be a disadvantage to or a form of discrimination against them if alcohol were not available on trains. However, if nothing is done about the minority group of louts, that action may need to be taken. I agree with the remarks made about staff morale. I have spoken to V/Line staffwho are frustrated about their lack of numbers and the lack of support they are given in providing services. I have other points I wish to raise but I am sure the Minister would like to say a few words. I close my remarks by referring to the driver education system. Honourable members must consider the problems associated with the developing attitude of arrogance and lack of concern demonstrated by drivers for one another. The only way to address the problem is through driver education. Currently the Ministry for Transport funds a driver education program in schools, which I applaud. I call on the Ministry for Education to further enhance the project so that when young people come through the school system and obtain their driver's licences, they will adopt a careful, understanding, and sensitive attitude when driving a vehicle. The attitude of drivers is as much responsible for the load toll as alcohol and speed. The only way to address the issue is through driver education. I trust that the Minister, in his willingness to address the problems, will consider my proposal and introduce another Bill to ensure that driver attitudes are changed and there is greater safety on Victoria's roads. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I take up the last point of the honourable member for Warrnambool. I know he did not mean what he said about V/Line, but he has to go through the motions. He is a supporter of V/Line and travels regularly on the trains. I do not take serious notice of the points he made about public transport generally. Victoria has had a bipartisan approach to public transport for many years. That approach began under the previous Liberal government and has continued. Victoria has been the pioneer in introducing legislation which made the wearin~ of seat belts compulsory; it introduced booze buses; and imposed tighter penaltIes for traffic offences. The road toll has plateaued but is now tending to rise again; although it is falling on a per capita basis, that fact provides no comfort. The government supports the campaign taken up by football clubs on the ·05 issue. I understand that just last week the matter was taken up by a Ballarat radio station. As honourable members know, I am interested in regional Victoria and understand it Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1623 well and I am always anxious to take up such initiatives. There may be opportunities for sponsorship of football clubs on a small scale. The government is considering its road safety strategy and will be concentrating on that aspect. More must be done about the matter. Mr W. D. McGrath-I can set you up with a couple of clubs. Mr KENNAN-I know that the Deputy Leader of the National Party can set me up with a couple of clubs. However, he will have to declare an interest-a sporting interest, that is; I am not suggesting he has a financial interest! In a letter to his daughter Scottie, in about 1937 or 1938, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that the test of a first rate mind is the capacity to hold two conflicting ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the capacIty to function. The letter can be found in Andrew Turnbull's collected letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald. There has been a later volume by Mathew J. Bruccoli. I once mentioned that definition in the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Chief Justice suggested that it was the test of a first rate lawyer. The Opposition has not endeavoured to pass the test of the first rate mind; it has simply reduced itself to a single idea: a screaming style of abuse; a rent-a-crowd approach to issues; talk of losses and left wing unions. It has not specified anything and has not gone into any detail. Honourable members must consider what has happened in the area of public transport because it represents a major problem for any government and any community. Public transport is an important function of State government. It relates to issues concerned with the growth of cities and attaining proper balances, as well as other important issues which have been discussed in some detail by Lewis Mumford in his seminal book The City in History, in which he discusses the importance of relying on a range of transport modes if a city is to work. Lewis Mumford gives the example of the Boston Common. He says that if all the residents of the historic area of Boston were asked to assemble on Boston Common and they got out their cars to drive there, they would never be able to reach it; they would have to abandon their cars and walk. However, if the residents of the area were asked to walk to Boston Common they could achieve that easily in an hour or so. Mr Brown interjected. Mr KENNAN-I understand why the Opposition finds what I am saying a little odd because members of the Opposition do not think about the importance of balance and intermodal balance in transport. A city the size of Melbourne needs to be able to provide public transport which can carry as many people as is reasonable. Effective roads must be provided-I shall return to the definition of "effective roads". Consideration must be given to the establishment of pedestrian paths as well as bicycle paths, and similar access to the city, particularly in the inner city but also in the outer city areas. The issue must be approached from the basis of getting the balances right. The system is interdependent; it is not independent. Roads are interdependent on the rail and public transport system running, and vice versa. If one system is blocked up and people are not using another area, the system becomes overburdened. The government has inherited a system which is rooted in the 1930s, in terms of the infrastructure. The tired administration that was in office for 27 years did not address the issues of either efficient management or proper infrastructure. By 1982, that administration did not have a vision; it was tired and worn out. The people of Victoria were offered red rattlers and the Lonie report which referred to shutting down 1624 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister lines. There was a decline in patronage and separate tickets were sold for the different modes of transport. There were heavy levels of manning. One speaker in the debate referred to the situation in 1977-78 when 28 599 people were employed in the public transport system. This year the figure will be down to fewer than 22 000 people and in the next three years we will be down to fewer than 20 000 people. That is a graphic illustration on how we have done more with fewer people. Over a thirteen or fourteen year period we will have reduced the manning levels of public transport by more than a third-30 to 40 per cent. Also, the government has improved the infrastructure and provided the new trains, trams and buses. Although the Liberal Party had started to examine some of those issues, I shall refer to that in relation to what the honourable member for Gippsland West said about centralised debt, because the figures are interesting indeed. It is we who integrated the ticketing system. The government has provided one ticket that carries passengers on tram, train and bus. It is the current government that has invested $140 million in V/Line, particularly in the freight area, to make it efficient. The present government has understood the need for modal balance and has expanded buses, although there have been other issues that we are presently addressing in relation to an expansion of bus costs. It is we who have established the Met and V/Line as separate marketing entities, and I do not think the Opposition would say that as marketing and operating entities, in a sense, they should be disbanded in the future because V/Line, as National Party members will know, is a successful organisation, and a Met organisation and marketing entity is necessary to run the Met system. It is we who have expanded the patronage and have had extraordinary success in marketing initiatives such as the 60-Plus ticketing system. More than 180000 people have now signed up for that concession with the result oftens of thousands of additional tickets being sold each week. It is we who have introduced the off-peak fares. We have been in the business of renewing the infrastructure, of providing new machinery and changing the culture that suggested that people are entitled to a lifetime job, without change, if they are in the public transport system. It is we who have introduced rapid changes and rapid reductions. The Opposition wed itself to attrition, but the present government has reduced the numbers-faster than would have been achieved simply by attrition-through its redundancy payments, although much can be done in addition in certain areas. For instance, three or four years ago the V/Line corporate plan employed 14 500 people. It now employs fewer than 10000 people and, under the corporate plan, by 1992 it will employ fewer than 8000 people. Someone referred to the overheads review being carried out by Price Waterhouse Urwick. In addition to the amalgamations and the corporate plan, that will see all of those employment targets more than achieved, and the overwhelming bulk will occur through attrition. Particularly in the country area, the attrition rate is not high, and it will be necessary to continue with some redundancy payments. The government has also spelt out its vision in detail through the MetPlan. MetPlan is probably the most detailed public transport document ever adopted by a government and put to our electorate. We believe we have strong support for the vision spelt out in MetPlan, which relies on modal balance and examines the old problem of circumferential routes, particularly in relation to buses. We have the radial nodes of Transport Portfolio-Censure ofMinister 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1625 tram-fixed rail and tram but to give flexibility to that, as well as providing circumferential movements, one also needs buses in public transport. The MetLink proposal, which is in the MetPlan, provides for a circumferential link around Melbourne as part of the negotiations carried out at present with the bus industry relating to the establishment of MetLink, in which there will be a role for both the public and private sector and where a new service, I hope, will be introduced during the course of this calendar year. It is that vision that distinguishes us from the Opposition. The government has built more than 280 kilometres of bicycle paths in this State. That rate of building will increase in the next few years. From now on, when the Road Construction Authority builds a major new road, it builds bicycle paths associated with it, and that will be done on the R5 project, it is almost completed on the South­ Eastern Arterial Link Road project and on the Eastern Arterial link, and that is in addition to the funds the Ministry gives to local government to build bicycle paths in a whole range of other areas. Pedestrian and bicycle paths are important, as our Central Area Traffic Study for the City of Melbourne shows. That study is on public exhibit at the moment. It has not been mentioned or understood by any Opposition member of this House, which is indicative of the huge gulf that exists in the quality of the government and the Opposition. The Opposition is about trying to get into office, but it will get into office only with a certain quality of leadership and quality of ideas that are put to people, and the Liberal Party-leaving personalities out of it for the purposes of this discussion-is failing in ideas. It is we who have been addressing the graffiti issues and youth issues that are a big concern, and it is we who have introduced the transit police. It is we who will be expanding those transit police numbers and it is we who will be introducing roving guards, which I know was a popular move at the last election because people want a second person moving on their trains as well as more police, and the government will be introducing that. It is we who have introduced closed-circuit television cameras on the stations at Frankston, Ringwood and so on. It is we who are undertaking increasing the lighting and closed circuit television around the stabling of trains. All of these details and suggestions came from the government; none of them from the Opposition. It would be nice, occasionally, to have some suggestions in relation to some of these details from the community, but, certainly, the Opposition provides no lead in that sense. It is we who have been involved in the effective commercialisation of railway stations. The Flinders Street Festival Marketplace is one of the more important urban developments carried out in Australia. It will be an enormous boon for the transport system as well as for the City of Melbourne. The type of modal interchanges the government has established at Box Hill and the one which is almost finished at Broadmeadows, which involves substantially private money, and the sort of thing being looked at at Dandenong, are examples of the government's enterprise. I was out in Dandenong with an excellent local member recently who had been making representations to me in relation to the Dandenong railway station. There is great capacity for that station to be integrated with the district centre development. All of those things are important. In relation to V/Line, we are building six extra carriages at the moment. The first one is almost completed and the others will be completed in the next couple of 1626 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Adjournment months. They will be going to serve that increasing patronage demand on lines such as the Geelong line and other lines where the trains are simply overflowing, because despite the rubbishing that is so easy for an Opposition to do, more and more people are wanting to travel on public transport, and one has only to step onto any of the trams in the city or any of the trains in peak hour such as on the Ringwood, Glen Waverley or the Geelong lines to find that more and more people are using public transport. We need to be looking at expanding the system spelt out in MetPlan which is realistically based on a reallocation of resources and a continued reduction of overhead expenses, at least in terms of the number of employees, although there will continue to be the need for an injection of capital, from time to time, to expand the system. The honourable member for Gippsland West, when he talks about the debt and billions of dollars and centralisation of debt, sometimes forgets that the government inherited approximately $400 million in debt from the underground rail loop exercise, $307 million from the West Gate Bridge project, $135 million in loans used to fund the World Trade Centre and, in addition, there are a number of sale and lease-back agreements that were finalised by the Liberal government for the purchase of trams, trains, and Mann and Volvo buses. Of course, it takes money to buy and finance those things and there is a confusion of debt and equity. I do not deny the fact that it was a good idea for the $overnment of the time to buy, belatedly, some more trams, trains and buses but It does cost money and, in the end they become a public and community asset so the constant rhetoric about debt is a lot of hyperbole; but I suppose it is much easier than really thinking about it. The same situation applies with roads. It is we who have laid down the efficient plans for roads. Some major roads that will probably be built in this generation include the R5, the Eastern Arterial, the Springvale bypass, the Gisborne bypass, and the Shepparton and Ballarat bypasses. In accordance with Sessional Orders, the debate was interrupted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! The time appointed for me to interrupt the business of the House has now arrived. The Minister may continue his remarks when the motion is next before the Chair. The sitting was suspended at 1.2 p.m. until 2.3 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ROPER (Minister for Planning and Environment)-I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, May 23. The motion was agreed to.

NATIONAL PARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from April 12) on the motion ofMrs Setches (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-The Bill makes provisions in respect of a number of matters. It includes provisions on wilderness; it has a single clause referring to mining in wilderness, national and State parks; and it also contains a number of fairly National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1627 detailed provisions and schedules on new parks and additions to a number of small areas within existing parks. I thought the second-reading speech was unhelpful in certain respects because it overstated the arguments put in support of the Bill. The Minister was ungenerous in not acknowledging that it was the policy of the former Liberal government-and, I understand, also the policy of the National Party-that there should be no mining in national parks. If that sort of factual information had been included in the second­ reading speech, it would have made it a better second-reading speech rather than a lesser one. In speaking of mining, the Minister mentioned the withdrawal of a company called Macquarie Resources from an area which I imagine is in the electorate of either the honourable member for Gippsland East or the honourable member for Benambra, but I am not sure of the exact boundaries. The Minister said that, having withdrawn from the national park area, the company will proceed with further exploration in areas outside the Cobberas-Tingaringy National Park, and that this will be a welcome boost to the Benambra district. I should have thought that if the Minister said something like that we might have been graced with some details about it. To say that the company had withdrawn from the large area after spending a lot of money saving the integrity of the park, and then to turn around and say the Benambra district will receive a boost out of the research outside the park boundaries, leaves the allegation of assistance to the economy as nothing more than an allegation. This sort of thing comes through in a number of ways where saying it seems to be, for the government, often a substitute for doing it. The second-reading speech states: The economic impact of putting the issue beyond doubt in legislation is arguably nil. In other words, the Minister says it is arguable that the cost to the community of no mining in national and State parks and wilderness areas is nil. The second-reading speech continues: But the benefits to the people of Victoria and for the tourism industry are quite tangible. Then follows a gasp from the audience-honourable members in this place-as they await the details of the "tangible" results that will be obtained from tourism. I have taken the precaution, on this occasion, of referring to the Concise Oxford Dictionary to find what the Minister might have meant by the word "tangible". According to the dictionary "tangible" means: perceptible by touch, definite, clearly intelligible, not illusive or visionary. A fair question to put to the Minister is: what are the "tangible" benefits that the Minister alleges? The damage that is done by overstatement, and the damage that follows from the overstatement being questioned and shot down, is in many ways at the heart of the difficulty of getting sensible legislation introduced, explained and passed through Parliament. The overstatement in the second-reading speech does not help that process. The government claims that it is on high moral wound: it is the only government with a conscience; the only government with a pohcy, and consists of the only people who believe. We want legislation which works and which is an expression of the collective views and wisdom of Parliament. The second-reading speech presents these kinds of difficulties. I turn to the various park proposals contained in the latter part of the proposed legislation. I say to the Minister, as I have said to officers who were kind enough to provide briefings-and I. thank those officers for the briefings received and for the hard work they did in explaining the situation-that, if the government does not 1628 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill review its policy of ignoring local members of Parliament on matters such as these parks and on matters which are the subject of the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill, which is also on the Notice Paper and which contains a whole range of proposals about areas of Crown land, it will be my recommendation-and I understand it is a recommendation that might be mirrored in the National Party also-that debate on the Bill automatically be adjourned in the Legislative Council for a minimum of six months. Every time the Minister asks departmental briefing officers whether the local member has been consulted, if the local member is on the government side the answer is, "Yes", and if the local member is a member of the National Party or the Opposition the answer is, "No". That situation just cannot continue. It has not gone unnoticed and will no longer be ignored. Without the input of local members representing their communities, how can decisions be properly based? How can any decision be properly made? How can Parliament be properly informed? It is not good enough for the Opposition spokesman or the National Party spokesman to go around this building searching for members of the other place or of this Chamber in order to ask them, "What do you think about this proposal or that proposal?" It is hard enough for Parliament to work on the basis of agreed information without attempting to promote mysteries by giving government members information in advance of the Bill being introduced into the House and allowing Opposition members only a fortnight while debate on the Bill is adjourned. The government cannot expect an intelligent, considered, well-based and balanced response from members of Parliament if it does not provide them with adequate and proper opportunities of informing themselves of the content of the Bill. Having gotten those housekeeping matters off my chest, I point out that the Opposition is concerned about the principles of Bills, and I shall stick to the principles of this Bill. The Opposition is committed to the protection of wilderness, a matter that might have been, but was not, mentioned in the Minister's second-reading speech. All the Minister said was that it was up to the Opposition to support the Bill because the environment is the challenge of the future. That is all good clean stuff, but it would have been a more generous second-reading speech if it had stated the actual position known to the Minister or discoverable as a result of a simple inquiry from a departmental officer that the Opposition was committed to the protection of wilderness. If the same question were directed to the National Party, it may have answered in the same way, but the National Party can speak for itself. It does not assist the debating of proposed legislation such as this if there is to be narrow, miserable point scoring on a measure which simply echoes the thoughts of a government party Bill committee. The Liberal Opposition supports wilderness but does not support the provisons for wilderness as presented by the Bill. The Oppositon will negotiate with the government and the National Party so that the Bill may be passed, with amendments, in this sessional period, so long as the amendments provide for Parliamentary approval of fresh new wilderness areas. At present there are two such areas which are not in doubt so far as the Opposition is concerned. The protective envelope around those wilderness areas may be appropriate for one but not for another. That is not because the definition of wilderness changes but because the wilderness areas may be different. The Land Conservation Council has already made different recommendations about different wilderness areas it has identified in the past. The Opposition supports wilderness measures but this Bill will be amended before it is passed. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1629

I turn now to the question of mining in wilderness areas, in national parks and in State parks. I acknowledge, as the Minister did in her second-reading speech-one of the few factual bits of information-that the distinction prevously made between State and national parks is to be put aside because they represent the same values and the real distinction most often made is on the basis of size. Normally national parks comprise large areas and State parks comprise small areas, but their values are much the same. The Opposition supports the provision to remove the discretion previously provided under section 40 of the Act for the Minister to authorise mining in wilderness areas, in national parks or in State parks. I now move to the third aspect, which is not mining but exploration. The Opposition supports the intention of the Bill to prohibit exploration for minerals in wilderness areas, in national parks and in State parks. The common theme of what I have said about wilderness and mining and exploration is that there will be Parliamentary control. If somebody wants to declare or propose new wilderness areas following a Land Conservation Council report-and this matter is before the LCC at present­ that will be done by the Parliamentary process, as is now the case for national parks and State parks, and this Bill will create five new park areas. If somebody wishes to propose some mining operation in a State or national park or-heaven forbid-in a wilderness area legislation will provide for that proposition to be authorised by the Parliamentary process. It will not happen in the future as a result of the excercise of Ministerial decision. If one were to suggest the Opposition is saying that it cannot trust the government of the day, or Ministers, or the section 40 processes, I suppose one would be right. The Opposition agrees that this issue ought to be on the Parliamentary rather than the executive government level. As the local member-indeed, as the unconsulted local member-I turn now to the Bunyip State Park, which is a park in the Berwick electorate covered by the Bill. I also advise the Minister and the House that the Lysterfield Park is also in the electorate I represent. For some reason, when the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands opened a new visitors block in that park, she was accompanied by the Treasurer. Apparently it escaped her attention and the attention of her officers that I was the local member and that I had not been invited to that opening. However, considering the way this government operates, perhaps it is not surprising that the Treasurer accompanied the Minister and that the local member was uninvited. I point out that this matter will be taken into account when the Bill is introduced and the second-reading debate is adjourned in the other place. If the government needs to be taught lessons on how to be a proper government, and if the Minister needs to be taught how to act as a proper Minister and to ensure that her staff carry out their responsibilities, the Opposition will ensure that they are taught in brutal, nasty, Parliamentary ways. Mr Sand on-You have been using your numbers in abusive ways already! Mr MACLELLAN-The honourable member for Carrum has recently descended in glory to the Legislative Assembly and he is already giving honourable members a lecture about the other place. He was a member of that place before the lords descended to the players, or should it be the gentlemen descending to the players! I refer the Minister to two c'onstituency matters which relate to the Bunyip State Park being given a different status. I ask whether the sambar deer project, which I am confident the Minister would know about, faces any difficulties. The project is undertaken in a small section of the park at the back ofa private farm. It is one of the most exciting projects in deer management, privately funded and voluntarily 1630 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill undertaken, in Australia. I ask the Minister whether it is under any threat as a result of a change in status of the Bunyip State Park as proposed by the Bill. Similarly, I ask the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands whether there is any intentIon to change the grazing licences which have been issued for various parks over many years and which have reduced the threat of fire in the district. The locals appreciation ofthe situation is that grazing is a positive factor for both the management and the fire safety of the area. Is there some support for the departmental officer who is currently saying to those who have the grazing licences, "You won't be there for long once the Bill goes through?" As the local member I pass on that local intelligence to the Minister because that is the sort of local intelligence she should have privately in consultation on the Bill rather than publicly, so that she knows what some of her departmental officers are up to. What some of them are up to is standing over people and telling them what will and will not happen rather than consulting with the local people about what ought to and should happen. Too much of the administration of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands is degenerating into a bully boy atmosphere rather than a cooperative and willing atmosphere. It boils down to a number of principal points. Wilderness is too important to be at risk. I do not think one can draw a boundary around wilderness. All one can do is draw a boundary beyond which intrusion to wilderness will not be allowed to penetrate. It is not possible to save wilderness with a boundary, but one can stop intrusion into it. I am grateful to the Victorian National Parks Association for a document sent to me that is useful in its attempt to define wilderness. It may be that the very words the association uses will be the sorts of words the Opposition might think of by way of amendment to the proposed legislation, because wilderness is sadly underdefined in the Bill. The document, entitled "Issues addressed in the Bill", has this definition under the heading "Recognition of Wilderness": A wilderness area is a large tract of natural land, remote and essentially undisturbed by the influences of modem technological society. I have to say "technological" even though the word used is "technology". That may be a useful definition and may be attractive to the Opposition. The Opposition will examine that matter during the course of the debate and when the Bill is between here and another place. The document then goes on to ask, "Where is it in Victoria?" It means by that: where is it in Victoria that we are still lucky enough to have wilderness? The document provides its own answer: Less than 3 per cent of the State is still in wilderness condition-l per cent in the Big Desert and Avon wilderness parks ... They are two areas which have gone through the Parliamentary process and which the Opposition does not call into question. The Opposition believes those two areas shall and should remain wilderness areas- ... and the other 2 per cent occurring in the Mallee, East Gippsland and the Alps-the latter areas are not zoned or managed as wilderness. I have a curiosity about that alpine area. During the course of the debate on the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill the matter of the contiguousness of the Alpine National Park was raised, and whether there would be interruptions from time to time by border-to-border wilderness, so that we would not have a contiguous Alpine National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1631

National Park; we would have a series of alpine national parks interrupted by areas zoned wilderness. The practical effect of that would be, if one were to use the alpine horse trail through the contiguous Alpine National Park, that one would have to dismount at the wilderness boundary and have the horse flown over the area so that one could get back on the horse at the other side of that area. No-one is suggesting anything as silly as that-at least no-one but one of the ideologues within the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands could possibly suggest anything as silly as that, and there are plenty of ideologues within that department who would be silly enough to make a suggestion like that. The Opposition says there should be Parliamentary controls so that the community will not have to worry about the occasional madman who puts up a proposal like that without thinking it through. The Opposition will ensure that these wilderness proposals are properly examined through the Parliamentary process. Wilderness areas provide a refuge for our native plants and animals so that they may continue to flourish in the wild. That is a value that should not be underestimated. The Opposition does not suggest that there should not be proper management of wilderness areas. If the wilderness area is to stay wilderness It is sensible that those who live in proximity to it should be protected against outbreaks of fire or pests or animals intruding into their areas, just as there ought to be proper controls on domestic animals intruding the other way. I do not wish to get into the decimal points of the proposals in the Bill regarding wilderness. It appeared to the Liberal Party committee that was examining the matter that, inadvertently, in its enthusiasm to ban guns, the government has ~ven the managers of wilderness areas an obligation to remove non-indigenous arumals but has refused them permission to use guns to do it. Indeed, the provisions in the ijill specifically refuse managers the right to hunt these animals. I am not sure how one would get rid of a rabbit if one did not hunt it and did not shoot it-other than by poisoning it. I should imagine that that would be one of the least desirable ways of removing rabbits in a wilderness area. The distinction about hunting is that it is all right to chase a rabbit with a stick so long as one does not enjoy it. If you enjoy it, you are hunting; but if you chase the rabbit with a stick and hit it but you do not enjoy it, it is not hunting. Again the ideologues are out of their minds. We want proper management and proper respect for wilderness, and we want Parliamentary control of it. I have no fixation about the removal of European or post-European settlement items from wilderness areas. If they are there it is a pity, but we do not need a witch­ hunt to remove European taps if they happen to be attached to a European windmill, water source or whatever. I do not have this terrible hang-up about the fact that Europeans have been here sharing the continent for the past 200 years. I do not have this ideological urge to pull things down and try to obliterate what is there. I am more anxious that we respect the wilderness that is there, that we should manage it carefully and well and that we should prise out of the government-and it is going to take some prising, both here and in another place-a clear statement about the fire management and fire use policy in wilderness areas. I know it is a delicate matter and it raises questions that are not easily answered, but if it is wilderness does one suppress the fire? It may be a fire that is started by lightning. Does one stop it in the wilderness? Does one stop it from leaving wilderness or let it go into an abutting buffer zone of government-owned land? Does one stop it there or stop it within the wilderness? If one perceives a threat of fire because of the building up of material in a wilderness area, how does one manage that problem? Knowing of the possibility of fire, does one take added precautions in the abutting areas? uAdded precautionsH may well mean that wilderness has to be surrounded with 1632 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill areas that are grazed to keep a break between the wilderness and the rest of the community. I am not suggesting that we nibble at wilderness or reduce or de$!ade wilderness; that we crisscross it with fire trails or say that wilderness has to be sacnficed because of fire concerns. The land outside and beyond wilderness may have to be managed in a very different way once we acknowledge that wilderness is a precious and continued value, and one to be preserved. Those questions need to be answered by the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands in the course of the debate. I hope other members will also contribute; some of them, perhaps, may discover with surprise that there are park proposals arising from former Land Conservation Council recommendations or from more recent acquisitions for the adjustment of park boundaries or a change in areas. I understand there are to be changes, for instance, in the electorate represented by the honourable member for Dromana. He is one of the few members I have discovered on the Opposition side of the Chamber who has been consulted, but only recently, because an amendment to the Bill was required. Rather than processing that amendment myself I thought it appropriate that the local member should examine it. That seems to be a workable situation. Perhaps we could involve local members more in the process of consultation. Perhaps as a Parliament we could have members generally more involved and make it less the factional party Bill committee of the government which decides the matters and more a matter that comes to the attention of Parliament as a whole. To quietly restate the position on behalf of the Opposition, I point out that the Liberal Party is supportive of the concept of protection of wilderness but does not support the proposals in the Bill, which must be amended. The Opposition will be supporting the ban on mining and mineral exploration in wilderness areas, in national parks and in State parks. It will be supporting the adjustment of park boundaries as proposed in the schedules. The Opposition hopes to continue its friendly discussions with the Minister by way of negotiations upon her return from Sweden or wherever in ten days' time, or with departmental officers in the meantime, regarding the amendments which may usefully be made to the Bill so that its passage through Parliament can be negotiated. I use that phrase deliberately. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but believes it will be able to negotiate the passage of the Bill through Parliament. Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-This Bill is one of the most important pieces of proposed legislation that Parliament has been asked to consider for quite some time in relation to the management of public land in Victoria. In my judgment this is the most important Bill the House has had to deal with since the passage of the Land Conservation Act 1970. Normally I thoroughly enjoy the contributions made by the honourable member for Berwick. However, I must confess to considerable disappointment at his contribution in the debate on a similar subject last week. While on that point, I fail to understand why this Bill and the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill were not debated conjointly. I cannot put any other construction on that but that the government wants to obtain the absolute maximum political mileage out of having two separate Bills to achieve basically the same objective. The only difference between the two measures is a slight matter of degree. It is rather strange that in the throes of a very busy sessional period the government chooses to have two closely related Bills debated at separate times. All the arguments in relation to the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill can be completely negated by the provisions in this Bill. Any arrangement or agreement National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1633 that has been made or would eventuate when different sides come together in relation to the Bill concerning the Alpine National Park can be nullified by the Land Conservation Council making a recommendation, and the government accepting that a particular area should become a wilderness area. The total deal would be finished. Mr Lieberman interjected. Mr EV ANS-I take the point made by the honourable member for Benambra; that it is subject to Parliamentary approval. . Mr Lieberman-Parliamentary amendment. Mr EV ANS-Amendment or approval-it is the same thing. In 1986 the House dealt with a Bill creating a number of additional national parks in East Gippsland. It created the Avon Wilderness. I need to confess to a certain direct interest in the Avon Wilderness because in 1965, fires that originated in the area that was later to become the Avon Wilderness-approximately 50 kilometres from my home-eventually resulted in my wife and family being ordered out of our home in the face of that fire. I had to race home from my Parliamentary duties. It was not a pleasant experience. Perhaps that may help honourable members understand my feelings and the feelings of my friends, neighbours and family, as well as all residents of East Gippsland about the problems that this Bill will bring in its wake. The significant aspect about the Bill is that it deals principally with the Question of wilderness. As the honourable member for Berwick pointed out, there is no available definition of "wilderness". The Minister could not give the House a definition in the Bill. The honourable member for Berwick was obviously casting around in his mind for a definition and he latched onto the first two lines in a handout issued by the Victorian National Parks Association. One reason why I normally enjoy the speeches of the honourable member for Berwick is because of his ability to analyse the information put forward. I ask him to analyse in his usual way the definition which he was referring to in the handout from the Victorian National Parks Association. It stated: A wilderness area is a large tract of natural land, remote and ... I hope the honourable member will assist me at a later stage by advising me of his views. Perhaps he could tell me: what is a "large tract"? The definition refers to "natural land" -does the honourable member know of any unnatural land? What does the discussion have to do with natural land? It mentions "remote"-remote from what? They are subjective words. The Avon Wilderness aea is not so remote when it can threaten my neighbours and my home from 50 kilometres away. That is very close! The definition then refers to an area that is: ... essentially undisturbed by the influence of modern technology society. What does that mean? What does "modem technology society" mean? Is that technology that has been developed in the past 20, 50, 100, or 200 years? Maybe it is something developed in the past 1000 years because, after all, the land has been occupied for at least 40 000 years. What does the honourable member for Berwick mean? I am astonished that, with his legal background, he would consider that a reasonable and responsible definition of wilderness. I shall help the honourable member out with some suggestions of what is meant by wilderness. I was surprised that the honourable member made no reference to the Land Conservation Council, which advised honourable members in a letter of 11 January 1989 that the council would conduct a wilderness investigation. It is Session 1989-53 1634 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill evident from the handout which accompanied the letter that the Land Conservation Council itself does not know what wilderness means. It is not something that is on the ground; it is not an area of bush; wilderness exists in people's minds. The handout by the council deals with the procedure that the council will adopt. It is a Statewide investigation into the matter, together with a resources report. In some areas of the State it will be the fourth resources report to be compiled by the council. It is using up huge amounts of paper. The council has the job of working out what a nature wilderness is. It would be fair to say that it does not know what it is talking about. The majority of honourable members who will contribute to this debate do not have the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. Wilderness areas have already been recommended by the Land Conservation Council and agreed to by Parliament. How does one arrive at that decision if one does not know what wilderness means? Two large areas of land in the State are recommended for declaration as wilderness areas, and the proposed legislation will declare those areas as wilderness parks. The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands does not know what wilderness means. The Land Conservation Council tells us that it does not know what it is, and the honourable member for Berwick does not know; yet we are proposing to pass legislation to give the council a blank cheque to recommend that any area of public land in this State should be declared a wilderness area. I have vivid recollections with regard to the Avon Wilderness that was declared in 1986. I did my best to persuade the then spokesperson for the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Evelyn, not to agree to the proposition that the Avon Wilderness should be declared, for the reasons that I have just stated. I hope no honourable member will challenge me on that. Any honourable member who chooses to examine that debate will find that the honourable member for Evelyn spelt out clearly that the Liberal Party. would not accede to my argument but would support the declaration of the Avon WIlderness because the Liberal Party believed it would give it a weapon to oppose the Rodger River area as wilderness at some time in the future. I would bet London to a brick that one of the first areas to be recommended as wilderness and accepted by the government, and supported by the Liberal Party, will be the Rodger River area. In 1979 the Land Conservation Council thought it knew what wilderness was. The council was investigating the alpine area, and in June 1979-and the honourable member for Benambra was a Minister in the government at that time-the council reported to the government. Firstly, I shall quote from the proposed recommendations issued in April 1978. Page 12 of that report states: The concept of wilderness ("an uncultivated and uninhabited tract" -Oxford English Dictionary) has received attention in Australia for many years, particularly since the early 1960s. The need to set aside areas because of their value as wilderness has been recognised by some Australian States. The wilderness experience involves the perception of being part of nature, of an environment unaltered by human intervention, of isolation, and of being exposed to the challenge of the elements. In a wilderness, man should function as a part ofthe natural system, and on equal terms with nature. Not one element of that paragraph has anything to do with the land. The concept of wilderness is man's reaction to the land around him. It has nothing to do with nature, with what is on the ground, or with trees, animals and birds; it has to do with man's reaction. The concept of wilderness exists in people's minds, not on the ground. The report continues: The main elements of the appeal of wilderness are: spiritual refreshment and an awareness of solitude arising from close contact with the uninhabited, substantially undisturbed, natural environment. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1635

the knowledge that there still exists a large natural area in which plants, animals, and soils can survive and interact with minimal interference by man. To know it is there is important. The report continues: refuge from the pressures, sights, and sounds of modem urban life. the adventure and challenge of putting one's powers of endurance and self-reliance to the test in a substantially undisturbed natural environment. Not one element of that proposal regarding wilderness has anything to do with the environment of the areas which are so declared. It is all in the minds of a very small handful of people because if there are any more than a handful of people the very character they want for the land will be destroyed. What we are setting out to do is at considerable expense to the government. Its purpose is to provide recreational opportunities for a few people who like to go bushwalking. I do not say there is anything wrong with that but let us call into play the well­ known reaction the interjecting honourable member has to everything that goes on in the country-the user-pays principle-and make them pay for it if they want it, in the same way that the pensioners who want a few square meters of public land on which to play bowls are charged up to the eyeballs for that land. However, for one or two university professors and a few of their students who go bushwalking, the government will set aside half the State without regard to the people who live in the close vicinity. The report continues: An ideal wilderness would, therefore, require a large area ofland that still retains its primeval character, and is without human modification or habitation. To preserve these values it would be necessary to protect the natural ecosystems from human interference and maintain the landscape in an undisturbed state. Council recognises that the Avon Wilderness does not meet the criteria for an ideal wilderness because of past human modification and the need for continued modification in order to ensure adequate fire protection and the control of vermin and noxious weeds. The council believes, however, that by careful management the impact of operations required for fire protection and pest control can be kept to a minimum. I believe the next statement sets out one of the important factors in wilderness areas: To fulfil the uses for which they are intended, wilderness areas should be sufficiently large to enable a walking trip of several days to be undertaken within them. Spaciousness is the essential characteristic distinguishing wilderness areas from the many other smaller undisturbed or primitive areas that may be found as "islands" even in land that has been developed for more intensive uses. We are starting to understand what people have in their minds for wilderness, but again, it is how they see it. They want to be able to walk for two or three days without seeing any sign of human activities. If many people want to do that, a tremendous amount of public land will be needed so that they do not bump into one another. I do not know how we can set aside that much land. Frankly, I do not believe this planet is big enough to enable that sort of spiritual satisfaction to be achieved by those few people in the community who seem to think it is absolutely a matter of life or death whether they can enjoy those particular activities. On the other side of the coin, it can be life or death to the forests and to the management of those areas for bushfires and fire protection purposes. The essential ingredient in relation to national parks, wilderness and other areas, is whether the steps we are taking in Parliament, and the steps the government itself has to take, will in fact protect those areas from ultimate destruction or irreversible change. Last week in another debate I dealt at some length with what I believe is an extremely valuable document, Eucalypts of Gippsland, written by Alfred Howitt. He published the document 100 years ago and described from first-hand knowledge the changes he had seen in the forests of East Gippsland during the extended period he 1636 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill lived and worked in the area. He had impeccable qualifications and credentials as a field naturalist who could speak with authority. I believe the key factor that emerged from what he had to say was that very significant changes occurred in the forests of East Gippsland despite the absence of settlers in a great deal of the area. He described how in the 30 or 40 years since he first moved into the area, there was a tremendous increase in the density of the forest. I also told the House last week that we recently celebrated the fact that in 1845 one of my forebears drove with his wife, family and all his possessions on a bullock dray from southern New South Wales through to the eastern side of the Snowy River, and almost certainly through the Rodger River area which is still being acclaimed as a pristine area. Today one would say that such a journey was totally impossible. It bears out exactly that with the advent of white man into the forests of East Gippsland­ I suggest it applies throughout the alpine area-there was a rapid and dramatic change in the nature of our forests because in that process-which of course is another story and a sad story-the Aboriginal people were displaced from all that country and were no longer there with their well-known, well-documented and widespread use of fire all the year round. There were no Aboriginal people moving through that area with their annual bushfires that kept thinning out the young saplings because obviously, if the saplings are only twelve or eighteen months old, they succumb more readily to fire with the result that only a small percentage of them survive to grow to maturity. It left the forests in an open park-like state and that was always the way I have understood our forests should appear. It is very rare that one sees it these days but there is a good example of how it should look, in my opinion, not far from Lakes Entrance where until a few years ago governments of the day still adopted a technique that was carried out over many years. When there were problems of low employment and difficulty in finding jobs for people, governments provided money to give them work on forestry management practices and silviculture, which enabled a lot of the undergrowth and scrub to be cleared out. To this day it still retains its very open park-like appearance. It would probably be well over twenty years ago that that particular work was carried out and it is not done any more. We pay people to do nothing rather than go out and do something for the benefit of the countryside. The Avon Wilderness area was recommended in due course by the Land Conservation Council and ultimately approved by this Parliament. I imagine many honourable members think that I am obsessed by the question of fire in the environment. An honourable member interjected. Mr EV ANS-I am pleased to see at least one honourable member shares my concern. Honourable members should ask the Library staff for information on this matter; if they did so, they would find many references that confirm what I am saying. I shall quote from a publication by the national bushfire research unit of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the effectiveness of fire hazard reduction in reducing fire intensity and assisting fire control operations. The Minister would do well to read this article. In part the article states: In any forest where there is a break between the surface fuels and the tree canopy, a fire cannot spread through the green canopy unless it is supported by an intense surface fire. In many dry eucalypt forests the weight of surface fuel required to carry the surface fire into the canopy under extreme fire weather conditions is around 10 tha- t although this may vary between 8 and 15 tha- t or more depending on the type and height of the forest ... Experiments in dry eucalypt forest fuels have shown that the rate of spread National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1637 of the fire is directly proportional to the weight of fine fuels consumed. Thus reducing the fuel weight by half halves the rate of spread and reduces the intensity of the fire to one-quarter of the initial intensity ... The rotation for repeated treatments will depend upon both the rate of accumulation and the maximum amount of fuel that fire authorities are prepared to accept in a particular location. Generally rotations of five to eight years are adopted for dry forests although rotations of eight to twelve years may be appropriate in very dry and cool forest zones. Shorter rotations of three to five years may be appropriate on areas requiring special protection needs. The article states that treed areas should be burnt once every twelve years at a minimum, but preferably more frequentlY. If that is not done-if vast areas are locked up as wilderness and are not burnt and fires started by lightning are allowed to burn out of control-the trees will be destroyed by nature. What I have been trying to drive throu~ the. thick skulls of members on both sides of the House-members of both the Liberal and Labor parties-for more years than I care to remember is that the Australian continent is very fire prone. If we close our eyes to reality and ignore the potential disasters that face us, the lesson will never be learnt. One would think that such a lesson would have been driven home to people in metropolitan Melbourne in 1983. Although I have not visited the Dandenongs recently, I have been told that people who were burnt out in 1983 are now rebuilding their homes in the same absurd and vulnerable situation. They have learnt nothing. The article continues: Fuels accumulate and decay rapidly in warm temperatures and coastal forests so that equilibrium levels may be reached in three to five years. In these areas hazard reduction burning may be prescribed primarily to reduce the fuel height. This will reduce the flame heights of subsequent wildfires and make suppression easier. Hazard reduction has to be applied to a substantial area of forest before it can have a significant impact on major wildfires. The area of treatment has to be sufficiently large to absorb, firstly, the momentum of the wildfire, and secondly, to absorb and retard the development of spot fires downwind of the main fire. I doubt whether many honourable members have either been in or seen a bushfire. I doubt whether they have seen how effective a previously burned out area can be in stopping the spread of a major fire-if that burned out area is large enough, as the article states. Time and again I have seen that occur. Yet the government intends to set aside vast areas, call them wilderness areas and do nothing to protect those areas from the inroads of fire. Those areas will be hazardous to surrounding public land, forests and private land. The areas that are set aside will ultimately be burned out because fires that are started by lightning, or whatever cause, will be too big to put out. I urge the Minister to take reading material such as this with her when she is travelling on an aeroplane, for example, and to read about the effects of fire. I shall also refer the Minister to another publication entitled Fighting Fire . .. with Fire which was published as a result of a symposium on fuel reduction burning in forests. Mr Gavin interjected. Mr EV ANS-I cannot see what the honourable member for Coburg would find humourous about the title. I shall quote the organisations that sponsored the publication: the graduate school of environmental science at Monash University; the Conservation Council of Victoria; and the then Forests Commission of Victoria. The article was first published in 1984; and the opening speech to the symposium was delivered by the Honourable R. A. Mackenzie, the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands. A great deal of trouble was taken to bring an expert from the United States of America so that views could be exchanged on the problem of fire management and fire control in forests. The expert from the United States of America, 1638 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

Mr V. E. Komarek, is the Executive Secretary of Tall Timbers Research Inc., which is situated in Tallahassee, Florida. Referring to a massive fire that occurred in the United States of America, he states: Such intense fires occur on all continents, and in nearly every instance the basic cause of such catastrophes has been man's lack of understanding of how his own activities relate to fire within the fire climates he inhabits. These major fires wherever they have been investigated, without exception, have been caused by man's mismanagement: allowing too much highly combustible fuel to accumulate uniformly over large areas. That is the mismanagement to which he is referring. This is an interesting comment: The energy released in many ofthese fires is close to or exceeds that of nuclear explosions. I have received correspondence from a gentleman who lives in Bendoc and who is interested in this question. He is a man who sees things for himself, especially because the little township of Bendoc is surrounded by lar~e areas of forest. Bendoc is only a stone's throw from the Errinundra Plateau. AccordIng to this gentleman's calculations, which are based on the amount of fine litter on the forest floor east of Bairnsdale, an energy equivalent of 5000 Hiroshima bombs has accumulated on the forest floor. That is his calculation of the energy that is waiting for a spark to release it; and he has not taken into account the large hmbs and other material that are constantly falling from those eucalypt trees onto the forest floor. Of course, the policies of this government have done nothing to reduce the amount of material on the forest floor because it has refused to allow the use of residue from sawmilling timbers throughout that area. That would have gone a long way towards reducing the amount of flammable material that accumulates on the forest floor, which, when the day is right and when the fire really gets a proper hold, will go up in flames as well, adding its share to the huge dissipation of energy that occurs In a massive forest fire. I dare say that many people would be surprised to know that the amount of energy that is released in the course of a massive fire is equivalent to the amount of energy released in an atomic explosion; although, admittedly, it would occur over a much more extended period, nevertheless, the pollution and all the problems associated with it still occur. I shall quote the comments of a person, who would probably not object to being called the king of the greenies himself, Mr Dick J ohnson, as contained in his book The Alps at the Crossroads. I have always found this to be a very interesting book that is full of excellent information. I refer to Mr Johnson's comment that appears at page 193 of his book: Proposition Fire is a natural and inseparable part of the Australian forest cycle, but Western man has altered the original environment so that a natural and self-balancing situation no longer exists. That is exactly the point I have been trying to make for many years. I agree with him totally. Mr Johnson then argues that the way in which there can be a return to that natural and balanced cycle of events is to just let lightning strikes take their course. Mr J ohnson and I part company on the point about what should be done in order to try to return the natural environment as nearly as practicable to the natural cycle of events that occurred for 40 000 years before white man came to this country. I refer now to Mr Johnson's comments about wilderness. I ask the House to contrast what he has just said about the way in which our environment has changed with what he says about wilderness. In his book, he says: We recommend: That wilderness zones be delineated in the management of the alpine park. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1639

That such zones be actively managed by allowing fire-access tracks within them to deteriorate and regenerate and by closing off public access along roads well back from the perimeter of the declared wilderness. That no vehicles for firefighting or for management be permitted within the declared wilderness except under extreme circumstances of public safety. Presumably, that means that it would be all right to go in and rescue bushwalkers who get caught In there, but not under any other circumstances. He also says: That careful watch be kept to ensure that the- wilderness zones do not deteriorate through human pressure and usage. In other words, he is saying that one should make sure that not too many people, apart from people like him, should ever see those wilderness areas. I believe the argument is incontrovertible. There is a need to manage all our public lands. We cannnot tie up vast areas as so-called wilderness areas. As I have said many times previously, I do not care what such areas are called; one can have one's little fantasies and dream up names to call those areas of land. All I am concerned about is how those areas are managed. I want the government to manage those areas in such a way as to ensure that they are there for future generations and to ensure that the forests are producing the materials that future generations will need. Absurd propositions, such as once-only logging, one of the concepts introduced by the Liberal Party, have been put forward. The concept of once-only logging is really saying that this generation can use the timber, but no future generation can do so. An insufferable attitude exists that nobody before, in the history of this country, ever planned anything and that nobody further down the track will do anything intelligent, but that in this generation and in this government alone resides all wisdom with regard to management of our forests and public lands. That is what the Bill is all about. It seeks to remove the discretion of the Minister to issue permits for mining on public land. Why is that considered necessary? If the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands does not wish to issue a mining permit, she is perfectly entitled to make that decision. She does not have to issue it; no-one would compel her to do so. However, further down the track, if we should ~et someone with a bit more intelligence and someone who knows what he or she is dOIng and ifhe or she goes about the job intelligently, why should we be able to say to future generations, "You cannot have the materials that exist in the ground on this continent"? What right do we have to say that? What an absurd, arrogant attitude is being put forward by this government! I should like to talk about this issue for some considerable time, but at this point, because I believe the National Party may be able to help the government, and perhaps also the honourable member for Berwick, I move the following reasoned amendment to the second-reading motion: That all the words after "That" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that any declaration by Act of Parliament of land as a wilderness park is subject to the principle that it be an area of more than 20 000 hectares, free of non­ indigenous flora and non-indigenous fauna, and which has been continuously managed in accordance with traditional techniques so as to retain the characteristics of Australian landscapes prior to European settlement." . The SPEAKER-Order! I advise honourable members that from now on, in their contributions to the debate, honourable members will speak to both the Bill and the reasoned amendment. Who seconds the motion? Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-I do, Sir. 1640 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Minister rose in her place, and I wondered whether she was seconding the motion in a spirit of ecumenical support for the Bill. In view of the Minister being out of her place, I suggest, Sir, that you should inquire whether she was seconding it. The SPEAKER-Order! There is no point of order. Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-The wording of this amendment is based on the argument that the purpose of declaring wilderness zones is to have an area of land as contained in the proposal put forward by the Victorian National Parks Association: A wilderness area is a large tract of natural land ... The amendment designates an area of 20 000 hectares. I do not know whether the Minister has any idea of what an area of 20 000 hectares looks like, but I can assure her that it is a very large tract of land. In an endeavour to flesh out the concept of natural land, I suggest honourable members should talk about it as being land that is not corrupted or changed in any way by the advent of non-indigenous species of flora and fauna. The National Parks Association also said that wilderness also brings into play the fact that it is "remote and essentially undisturbed by the influences of modem technology society". One effect of modem technology has been to put out all the fires that should have been allowed to bum. I am taking up the definition of "wilderness" put forward by the Victorian National Parks Association. It will be difficult for the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands to argue that the definition is not in full accord with that of the association. It is difficult to understand how someone can argue that a wilderness area is in its natural, undisturbed state if it has rabbits running around it or blackberries growing on it. What will happen when deer wander into the wilderness areas? I am sure the Minister is well aware of the increasing number of deer throughout the country. The day may come when something has to be done about them. If one cannot hunt them, what does one do? Shoo them out? That is how absurd the Bill is! What will the Minister do about wild dogs, feral cats or feral people? Mr Harrowfield-They are your constituents! Mr EV ANS-There a few feral people in East Gippsland, as there are in other parts. I remind honourable members that in 1986 I pointed out to the House that one of the most prevalent uses to which our national parks were being put was the growing of marijuana. What a wonderful opening a wilderness provides for a marijuana plot! Mr Perton-The VEDC would fund it! Mr EV ANS-My comment has been greeted with a certain amount of levity, but the situation is sad and tragic. Years ago a senior police officer told me that marijuana would have to be legalised because the Police Force cannot keep track of it growing in the forests. I challenge the Minister to get a list of how many plots of marijuana plants have been detected in the past twelve months in national parks. During that time some of the major finds in Victoria have been in national parks. Honourable members should examine the motives of some of the people who are working hard to have large areas of land designated as wilderness areas. Far be-it from me to accuse thl! Victorian National Parks Association of nefarious activity. However, from my experience of the way many of the association's members National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1641

have been led by the nose, I know that they cannot see the wood for the trees. They do not know what they are doing. Ms Kirner interjected. Mr EVANS-It is wonderful to see the former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, the present Minister for Education, in the House. She is the thirteenth member of the council of the Shire of Orbost! She will not even give the kids in that area an education allowance and makes them go to school in New South Wales! That is the compassion she has for the people! The reasoned amendment I have moved is valuable and should be taken up by the government. The government should withdraw the Bill and give serious consideration to the issues I have raised about the effect on surrounding forests and public land of vast areas of unkempt forest. Parliament has legislated to require people who have unkempt, untidy blocks that represent fire hazards to clear those blocks. If a municipal council is not happy about the state of a block of land, it can clear the land at the expense of the owner. The government is treating public land totally differently. It will place fire hazards here and there around the State so that bushwalkers can commune with nature and climb to the top of a mountain and pretend they were the first people to have done it. When one wilderness area is burnt out, the bushwalkers can wander away and leave people who live in the area to try to recover their destroyed lives. The bushwalkers can go off and commune with nature in a wilderness area elsewhere. That is what honourable members are being asked to promote. It is high time Parliament reflected the opinions of all the people in the State and not just those who happen to get the ear of the government. Last week a division was called during the debate on the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill. The vote suggested that only 10 per cent of the population of Victoria is opposed to the concept of a contiguous Alpine National Park. I shall be interested to see whether the same opinion is reflected during this debate. I want to know whether the honourable members for Benambra, Portland and Mildura-who all periodically call for help against the oppression ofthe metropolitan­ dominated governments over what they see as being in the best interests of public land in areas they represent-will vote for the Bill. I shall be interested to see whether the point of view of the people who elected them will be put forward or whether they will be corrupted by other influences and not vote according to the wishes of the people they are elected to represent. The perception in the community is that members of the Liberal Party and members of the Labor Party will vote one way, so the National Party must be wrong because it has only a handful of members. There is no doubt that the Liberal and Labor parties will win the argument. Before the former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands became the Minister for Education, she was starting to understand that the National Party is right; she was coming around to our way of thinking. Members of the National Party are now in the process of re-educating the third Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands in approximately eight years. It is' a slow process; they are not fast learners. It is most important for the integrity of Parliament that it reflects as accurately as possible a cross-section of the opinions ofthe people who elected their representatives. I am afraid we will see the spectacle of honourable members, who in their hearts know that what I am saying is right, voting against the reasoned amendment. They will sit with the communists on the government side of the House. The honourable member for Portland will do that. 1642 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

Honourable members interjecting. Mr EV ANS-What is in a name? For years I have been saying that I do not care whether national parks are called national parks and I do not care whether members of the Labor Party are communists, socialists or whatever. It is all the same! This is a most significant measure for people livin~ outside the metropolitan area. The Land Conservation Council has effect only in shIres; therefore, it is only country people who will be affected by the Bill. Why on earth should this House not take note of the opinions of people from the areas affected who elected representatives in this place? The amendment I have moved is worth considering. It will do much towards bringing the controversy of managing public land back to a sensible base. We might then just be able to pass public land on to future generations in better shape than it was when we found it and forests that might also be better able to meet the needs of future ~enerations than they have our generation, and to open up opportunities for all cItizens of this State to enjoy the vast forest areas which the State is privileged to control. The SPEAKER-Order! I call the honourable member for Greensborough and I remind honourable members of the tradition during inaugural speeches of members of the Legislative Assembly and I ask that they extend the honourable member the same courtesy. Mrs GARBUTT (Greensborough)-It is with great pleasure that I support this important Bill and oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East. The Bill will enshrine in legislation two principles that are crucial to conservation objectives: firstly, the preservation of the wilderness area and, secondly, the prohibition of mining in national parks. The Bill goes further to create five new parks and it expands other existing parks, building on the impressive record of the government in protecting significant and representative ecosystems of Victoria. The two latest Bills providing for national parks, the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill and this Bill, represent the most recent of many landmarks reached by the government in conservation and environment legislation. During the past seven years, the ~overnment has doubled the area of land protected in national parks. These new addItions mean that 8·4 per cent of Victoria, or 2 million hectares are now included in national, State or wilderness parks. That is a remarkable achievement. I point also to other landmarks such as the Tree Victoria Program, the ozone protection legislation, flora and fauna guarantee, the waste minimisation scheme for Industry and the land care and salinity programs. This is a wide-ranging view of conservation and environment by the government, not just a narrow focus on protecting our most spectacular scenery, but a vision of our environment as an Interlocking ecosystem in which each part has its place and every action has a reaction. Examination of the government's legislation reveals that it is taking action on many different fronts in the battle to protect our environment. It is based on the proposition that development must be ecologically sustainable and that what we do in our environment must not destroy or alter forever the ability of our world to survive. The Labor government policy "A greenprint for our future" says it clearly. The greenprint "offers Victorians the opportunity for a satisfying and sustainable future for ourselves and our earth". I am confident the people of Greensborough share my commitment to the ideals of conservation and environment. Indeed, this was the major issue of the recent by­ election. However, conservation is only one of many ideals and principles held strongly by the people of Greensborough. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1643

The Leader of the Opposition chose to trivialise those principles and ideals when he described Greensborough as "basically a retirement village for superannuated hippies, the new class of Labor supporters who voted Whitlam into power and never got over it". Apart from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is closer to being superannuated, compulsorily, than most of the voters of Greensborough, he has scorned and rejected the principles valued by most of my electorate. It is no wonder that they did the same thing to him and his party at the by-election! We place great value on those principles that former Prime Minister Whitlam stood for-not just conservation but also a commitment to peace, to a just and equitable society, to a quality education system, a concern for the aged, the sick and disadvantaged. Many of these principles Whitlam was not able to enshrine in le~slation for he was a man ahead of his time. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition IS a man behind the times. He and his party have repeatedly demonstrated that they know little about conservation-but they are learning about the wilderness, the political wilderness! The constituents of Greensborough have a long record of concern for the protection of their environment. Some major local environmental battles have taken place over the past few years over the various proposals by the Shire of Diamond Valley for tips to be located at Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge and Plenty. All of these proposals have been defeated, one by one, after long and costly struggles by the local community through the planning process. The government's environment protection policy will now rule out the prospect of any landfill tips in the area in order to protect water quality in the Yarra catchment. The most recent victory for conservation was the protection of the Plenty Gorge from development in the Plenty corridor. The government reduced the population to be housed in the corridor from 100 000 to 70 000 and so protected the many areas of hi~ conservation value-the Plenty Gorge, the river redgums and the wetlands. It is thIS commitment to conservation and to sensitive development that the people of Greensborough supported. On the issue of conservation no one had a better record locall>:: than did the former . member for Greensborough, the late Pauline Toner. I pay tnbute to Pauline and recognise her strong commitment to conservation and her strong support to her constituents in their man>:: battles to protect the local environment. Her leadership, concern and dedication WIll be sadly missed in future battles for the environment. . Greensborough is a rapidly growing and chanf'ng electorate facing many pressures for residential subdivision and the provision 0 services. The challenge for us is to provide these services, to plan these changes without threatening our environment, without changing the nature of the area and without losing our identity. The Bill complements the decision made last week to create an Alpine National Park which puts in place a long-awaited and dearly held ambition of many Victorians, a lalle contiguous national park of world status stretching from the Australian Capital Temtory to the Kosciusko National Park in New South Wales, through East Gippsland across our Alps almost to Mansfield. It is a magnificent national park and I congratulate the government for its achievement. The Bill makes important advances in conservation. Firstly, it prohibits mining in national parks, State parks and wilderness areas. In my view mining and exploration activities are incompatible with the concept of national parks. I welcome the formalisation of the ban in the proposed legislation. National parks were first valued for their natural spectacular scenery. Our earliest parks at Ferntree Gully in 1882, and later at Mount Buffalo and Wilsons Promontory, 1644 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill reflect this view clearly. It was an earlier recognition by our community of important values other than those of material wealth. It was an important change from the perception of the pioneers that the Australian bush was a place to be tamed, in which a homestead was carved out of inhospitable wilderness, where trees were felled so that the landscape took on the familiar and reassuring appearance of the "old country". The value of national parks is not to be measured in monetary terms. Our community has come to value the scenic natural beauty of our national parks, to value them for their natural environment, and as a fragile habitat of unique native species of plants and animals. National parks are valued for the opportunities they present for recreation; however, it is a recreation based on self-reliance, self-discovery, challenge and adventuring. National parks also represent an investment in the future. Their value in the future is unknown. Many examples abound of trees, plants, or even fungi which earlier have been regarded as useless but were later found to have great value in medicine, science or some other area. A related concept is that of the protection of the genetic diversity of the ecosystem. Mankind has greatly simplified ecosystems, destroying varieties of plants and animals of little commercial value and greatly multiplying the numbers of a chosen few valuable species. Simple ecosystems are notoriously unstable, prone to disease and deformity. The protection of our vast agricultural investments could depend upon the steps we now take to protect whole ecosystems, allowing for crossbreeding, hybridisation and genetic variability of plants and animals to continue as they have done for millions of years. Our society is being threatened by new diseases all the time. The most notorious of all currently is AIDS; however, there are many other diseases including Legionnaires' disease. We do not yet know how we can fight these new deadly diseases. It may eventuate that the answer lies in a rare species protected in a State park or it may be a hybrid developing in the isolation of a wilderness area. The future value of this process is incalculable. These then are the values of national and State parks-aesthetic, recreational and scientific. A belief for the future and a desire to pass on to future generations the best of our natural environment. Dick Johnson, in his book The Alps at the Crossroads, describes it as a "bold, broadhearted gesture which repudiates everything our dull machine-based culture serves up as reality". An examination of the concept and values of parks reveals the total inappropriateness of mining in parks. Mining represents the antithesis of national park values. It represents the values of short-term exploitation for personal profit, of materialism and permanent alteration of the natural environment. Mines, roads, litter, trucks, fumes and buildings are the ecosystem of mining and exploration. I welcome their prohibition in national parks, State parks and wilderness areas. A second milestone is achieved in the Bill in the provision for wilderness areas. Wilderness is a rare and diminishing resource around the world. In many parts of the world, longer settled, densely populated countries such as Great Britain have no wilderness left. Indeed, throughout the history of mankind wilderness has been viewed with fear or as a barren, unproductive wasteland. Only in the past century, when nearly all the world has been tamed, has there been a change to the view that wilderness has its own beauty and value. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1645

The first country to recognise this was the United States of America where 25 years ago the Wilderness Act 1964 defined it as: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognised as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" and that it is an area "retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation". That was 25 years ago! Why protect these areas? In these times of economic accountability we need to spell out clearly our reasons and the benefits now and in the future of taking this step. The benefit to a modern, industrialised4 society such as ours for recreation and physical exercise is enormous. With shorter working hours, recreation time is increasing. With the rearrangement of the working week to allow for rostered days off, flexidays, nine-day fortnights and so on, more time is available to our work force for recreation and holidays. With the more sedentary occupations that characterise the high-tech, computer age we are entering, the necessity for physical activity outdoors is also increasing and being recognised. Wilderness areas offer wonderful opportunities for physical activities of the most challenging sort. However, they need to be carefully managed in accordance with the objectives of wilderness, leaving no permanent mark upon them. There are also scientific and educational benefits, much as I have outlined previously for national parks, but with more to offer. Wilderness areas, being undisturbed natural areas, provide opportunities for establishing benchmarks against which modified ecosystems can be studied. They are the standard by which man's interference can be measured. They mark the beginning of the natural environment leading to the urban development path mankind has been travelling since the Stone Age. Finally, I list the benefit to our psyches in the opportunity wilderness provides to experience solitude, to leave stress and strain behind, to get back to our beginnings when we were a primitive part of the wilderness and to find ourselves. The experience of wilderness is thought to be a beneficial one psychologically, promoting health and well-being, creativity and an appreciation of one's capabilities and limitations. One does not have to visit a wilderness area to appreciate it. ludith Wright put it this way: The thought of "the calm, the leaf, and the voice <:>fthe forest" is itselfa refuge from stress, a wilderness at the back of the strained mind. When we finally know that the last forest has gone, that there is nowhere to go but along the runways of our steel and concrete anthills, that the last link with our past has snapped, then perhaps we may snap too. We will have no refuge at all. These benefits are spelt out clearly in the Bill and I am pleased to endorse its objectives. Honourable Members-Hear, hear! Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-Before I speak on the Bill, I congratulate the honourable member for Greensborough, firstly, on her election in winning the Greensborough by­ election and, secondly, on her maiden speech. She obviously has a feel for conservation matters, even though one might not agree with everything she said. The Bill amends the National Parks Act 1975 in relation to State parks and wilderness areas. It establishes five new State parks and makes provision for a number of wilderness parks. It also changes the boundaries of some of the existing parks. The most important single thing it does is that it disallows mining and exploration in State parks, national parks and wilderness areas. 1646 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

I remind the House that it was the Liberal Party that set up the Land Conservation Council in the days of Sir Henry Bolte. Mr Micallef-And the land deals! Mr AUSTIN-If one considers some of the Labor Party deals, the so-called land deals were absolutely negligible. Some of the deals that this government has been involved in, such as the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, the Victorian Investment Corporation and others, do not bear scrutiny. WorkCare is still to come! The Land Conservation Council was set up to study and make recommendations on the future management of public land. As a result of the work done and the recommendations made by the Land Conservation Council the Hamer government established national parks across the State. The aim of the Hamer government at that time was to move towards having 5 per cent of the State of Victoria in parks. That figure has been reached and passed and today I understand the percentage of land in parks is between 7 and 8 per cent. The National Parks Act affects some 50 State and other parks involvin$ thousands of hectares of land. If the Bill is passed, some 24 per cent of all public land In this State will be included in parks. Honourable members have listened to two entertaining speeches made by the honourable members for Berwick and Gippsland East, especially about wilderness. I have always been confused as to what wilderness really is. I always imagined that if an area was allowed to go wild and have no management and if it was sufficiently productive it became a wilderness. That seems not to be the case. I have also heard it said that if nothing is touched the land becomes a wilderness. I was confused by the definition of "wilderness" at the top of the paper presented by the Victorian National Parks' Association: A wilderness area is a large tract ... I do not have the faintest idea what that is. The honourable member for Gippsland East said that the land must be remote. I find that amazing. If the land is nearby, it cannot be a wilderness. Nearby what? The final thing the association says about a wilderness is that it is a diminishing and irreplaceable asset. Does that mean that if the wilderness is burnt out or suffers from a fire that that is the end of it? If the vegetation regrows, can it be a wilderness again? Apparently a wilderness is an area wherein one can walk for miles. One would not be able to walk through some of the areas I have seen that are meant to be wilderness areas because they are too dense. What happens to the cycle of a wilderness? Trees, shrubs and plants live and die. One wonders how the cycle is maintained in terms of the definition that has been given. The honourable member for Gippsland East moved a reasoned amendment in an attempt to seek clarification on the definition of a "wilderness". The Opposition has sympathy with the honourable member for Gippsland East because the explanation given in the second-reading speech is most unsatisfactory. On balance, the Liberal Party will support the reasoned amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East. Discussions must be held to determine where the government is heading and what the definition should be. The honourable member for Berwick made it clear that the Liberal Party supports the proposed legislation. I join in that view but express concern about which activities will be permitted to be undertaken in the parks to be created in the future under the provisions of the Bill. I express concern, too, about the management of those parks National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1647

which will be in my electorate, because the management record of the Department of Conservation, Forrests and Lands over the past months and years has left a lot to be desired, to say the least. As more parks are created and there are fewer resources, their management will deteriorate. The honourable member for Berwick referred to the comparison between State parks and national parks. I hope the Minister will clarify the difference between the two, as the issue arose durin~ the course of discussions conducted by members of the Liberal Party when considenng both pieces of proposed legislation relating to parks. I agree with the honourable member for Gippsland East that there seems to be no reason why the two Bills were not debated as one. I hope the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands does not fall into the trap of trying to make political capital out of important issues. I am concerned that the Minister is not listening when I am attempting to get a message across to her. I suppose it is of the nature of new Ministers who are fairly inexperienced and do not know much about the subject of their responsibility. For your benefit, Mr Acting Speaker, I repeat my concern about the difference, if any, between national parks and State parks. The honourable member for Berwick asked whether it was just a question of size. Now that the Minister has returned to the table, I ask that she address this issue and clarify for members on this side of the House the difference between State parks and national parks. Is it just a question of size? I am sure that in the minds of many people the understanding is that there is a significant difference between the two and that one may do things and carry out activities in State parks which are not permitted in natIonal parks. I turn to the important and significant aspects of the Bill that deal with mining activities. The mining companies around Australia will be waitin~ with great interest to hear what is the decision of Parliament on this matter. They will be assessing their position and may be making their judgments for the future. If honourable members accept that something of the order of 7 to 8 per cent of the total land in this State is now given over to State parks, it could be said that 92 or 93 per cent of the land, with some exceptions, is left for mining activity. Some people might consider that reasonable, but one must examine the nature of the land. Vast areas of land in the Western District-the windswept plains which are often called "pleurisy plains" -have never been mined. In the Mallee and northern Wimmera, there are thousands of acres of wheatlands where the same thing applies. There is no mineral deposit there and there never will be. The shaley quartz country which lends itself to the growing of trees is also mining country; the areas are largely synonymous. My main reason for speaking on the proposed legislation is to obtain clarification from the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands on where the minin$ industry stands, whether it has any future in this State, and whether it is the intentIon of the government to make things so difficult for mining companies that they will decide to leave Victoria once and for all. Many leaders of the major mining companies in this State have asked the government to make that position clear because they do not want to be messed about with. If that is the government's intention, it should be honest enough to inform the mining companies accordingly. In the 1850s, Victoria was the richest mining State in Australia; today it is almost the smallest, with approximately $40 million worth of mineral wealth being extracted annually. A substantial part of that wealth is derived from an area in my electorate around the town of Stawell, where there is a successful venture by Western Mining 1648 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

Corporation Ltd. The venture has brought many benefits to the economy of the town and the area. It has helped considerably through its support of various sporting activities and other community interests which need families and children for their maintenance. The money taken in mineral wealth in New South Wales is ten times that taken in Victoria; in Tasmania it is five times greater than in Victoria. Honourable members must understand that much time, planning and investment precede a successful mining operation being carried out. For every 1000 prospects­ that is the terminology of the mining industry-there are on average only 10 drilling operations. Of those 1000 prospects, on average one mine is established. A tremendous amount of work, exploration, and effort is required before any mining is undertaken. I seek a comment from the Minister on exploration licences. My understanding is that an exploration licence lasts for five years. At the end of that period, one must give up 40 per cent of the licence and show that some activity has taken place in the remaining 60 per cent of the area. I imagine that the new areas addressed in the Bill include areas which have exploration licences applying to them. I ask that the Minister address this issue as well. Will the Minister tell the House in percentage terms how much of the area that is to be absorbed by parks under the proposed legislation has exploration licences affecting it? Will the Minister also tell the House what is the future of those licences? I imagine that when mining companies see that mining and exploration are disallowed under the Bill-even if those companies have no current exploration licences-they will be somewhat reluctant to explore for minerals. Even if one estimated that there were $10 billion under the ground, I should imagine one would never be allowed to mine it, so I ask the Minister whether it would be her intention and the intention of her government, if that sort of situation ever arose in a suitable area-not being one of particular significance, but in a park where it could practically be applied-that consideration would be given to excising that particular piece of land, even it if meant adding land from somewhere else, so that that mining operation could proceed. The Bill establishes five new parks, two of which are in the electorate I represent. One is the Mount Buangor State Park of 2400 hectares. It is a popular recreation area situated close to the Western Highway on the Ararat side of Beaufort. The second one is the Paddy Ranges State Park of 1670 hectares. It is mostly box and ironbark trees and open forest country, and features some marvellous wild flowers and, in particular, the famous wattle from which the Wattle Festival of Maryborough Annual has become famous. It is a popular and attractive recreation area and certainly lends itself to tourism. The people of Maryborough are delighted that that area has been made into a State park, and they look forward to attracting tourists there now and in the future. Given that we will have no mining or exploration in national parks, State parks or wilderness parks, will the government make it easier to explore and mine on other Crown lands? From that question one must ask: where, in the State of Victoria, is mining really welcome? With those comments, I repeat that the Liberal Party supports the Bill but it also supports the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-It is pleasing to hear the honourable member for Ripon suggesting that the Opposition will support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East. It is a well-considered, well-researched and worthwhile amendment. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1649

Before I proceed to debate the amendment, I offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Greensborough in making her maiden speech in Parliament this afternoon. I only hope that she does fulfil the aspirations of the Labor Party, and follows in the steps of the former honourable member for Greensborough, Mrs Pauline Toner. I wish her all the best and every consideration in her participation in Parliament. The National Parks (Amendment) Bill is a sensitive one. In many ways it raises the emotions of people in the community. I do not know that it raises the emotions or adrenalin of country people to the same degree because city people seem to have some great mystery about what can be allowed within public land areas of this State. To see these areas declared wilderness areas or national or State parks seems to conjure up in the minds of city people a whole new dream of something great and new. In fact, the land and the environmment have been there ever since the seas rolled back and' allowed the land to be exposed. In terms of the prohibition on development and other activities in a wilderness park, the Bill states in section 17C of proposed Division lA, on page 3 of the Bill: "17c. (1) The Director must ensure that in a wilderness park- (a) there are no roads, structures or installations; and (b) no commercial activity or development is carried out; and (c) there is no use of any form of motorized or mechanical transport; In this instance we are talking about big acreages. Mr Roper interjected. Mr W. D. McGRATH-Yes, I suppose I should have said hectares. You get more money for a hectare than you do for an acre. That is the difference! The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson)-Order! I am quite prepared to accept some pedantry from the Minister, but he should not interrupt the debate. Mr W. D. McGRA TH-The wilderness areas are large yet there is not allowed to be any motorised or mechanical transport into the areas. I should like to know what happens in the case of a fire outbreak. Mr Brown-Very strong hoses! Mr W. D. McGRATH-That is true-and very long hoses. That is the reality. Mr Brown-What about motorised wheelchairs? Mr W. D. McGRATH-That is my point. It is motorised and, therefore, it disadvantages disabled people who use motorised wheelchairs or mechanical transport, which will not be allowed into the wilderness area. This is stated quite plainly and strongly, but I feel the more important point is in relation to fire. As the honourable member for Gippsland East has mentioned on numerous occasions, because of the volatility of our atmosphere, we do have thunderstorm activity and lightning strikes and, when a change of temperature comes about on total fire ban days and a fire has been lit by a lightning strike perhaps a couple of days earlier, the wilderness area will be greatly affected; yet there is no provision to take trucks, motorised vehicles or any firefighting apparatus into the area to put out the fire. Suddenly it is out of control on a large front and it is burning. Perhaps one would not even be able to set down a helicopter which could be used to douse water in a 1650 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill firefighting situation. It is a crazy suggestion that there be no form of motorised or mechanical transport allowed in these areas. Further, section 17 estates: (d) There is no use of any non-indigenous animal; and (e) There is no hunting. I can assure the Minister that no respect will be given by those feral animals as to whether or not it is a wilderness area. They will not see any imaginary line marking out a wilderness area and they will not think, "We, as feral animals, are not allowed in there". They will transgress into wilderness areas. The animals to which I refer are feral goats, rabbits, dogs, cats, brumbies and pigs. In recent times we have read about the damage being caused in the Mount Kosciusko National Park by feral pigs, and one has only to take a trip into southern New South Wales to see that hundreds of feral pigs are causing a lot of damage. This issue is of great concern to the National Party, particularly the non-ability of people to hunt and pursue the feral animals that cause damage and danger in the environment. I heard the honourable member for Greensborough saying that the people in the electorate she represents would love to have the privilege of witnessing the serenity of these wilderness areas. One may be visiting a wilderness area with a couple of young children and come across a couple of wild pigs, animals that do not have a great deal of respect for human beings. They are wild animals and they see the humans as transgressing on their territory, and the only way they know of protecting that territory is to attack. If that situation occurred, we would have an unfortunate tragedy on our hands. The "management plan" states that no hunting should take place. How does one come to terms with increases in the feral animal population? If hunting is disallowed the numbers of feral animals will increase and those animals will endanger the environment. I ask the Minister to consider the logic of the National Party's argument. Blackberries and horehound, which are prolific growers if control measures are not carried out, will create problems in wilderness areas. Even though the rainforests in the Amazon have been cleared, the soil is not rich enough to sustain agricultural production for very long. Rainforests and eucalypt forests do not require good soils; they simply require carbon dioxide, moisture and sunshine. Farmers have no great desire to develop wilderness areas from an agricultural point of view. The phrase "land management" was used frequently in the recent debate on the Alpine National Park and commonsense land management must be considered in respect of any public land. Through the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, the government has an obli~tion to manage public lands not only for this generation, but also for future generations. Over a long period the National Party has been advocatin$ the adoption of proper, sound land management practices by the government. In saYIng that, I also point out that Crown land can be used for multiple purposes for the benefit of all in the community. There can be the benefits associated with the tranquillity ofa national park, to which the honourable member for Greensborough referred, as well as the benefits for the tourism and timber industries, provided proper, sensible management procedures are followed. In the 90 years prior to the changes that occurred within the department when the Labor ~ovemment assumed office, the former Forests Commission managed forests exceedingly well through its management plans and achieved economic and social benefits as a result. I give full credit to the work of forestry officers over the years who, National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1651 with great dedication to duty, achieved those objectives but who have been hamstrung by the policies of the Labor government during the past seven years. Some officers in the department have enormous expertise with respect to multipurpose land use and management. In the past they implemented programs of reforestation and developed individual plans to come to terms with patches of salinity and erosion. They had, through the application of commonsense and a somewhat free rein, an ability to come to terms with the problem. However, that is no longer the case. Mining could perhaps be described as an emotive subject. If my memory serves me correctly, at present, after many years of mining operations in Victoria, only 0·02 per cent of Victoria's landmass is devoted to mining. That is a minute amount of the overall area of the State. It has been mentioned in the House previously that a number of municipalities explored the possibility of extracting gravel from areas of Crown land and State and national parks for use on public roads. I shall cite an example in the Shire of Dundas where, a couple of years ago, the shire was developing a new public road and sought to extract gravel from Crown land a mile away from the development. However, the municipality was not given consent to extract the gravel, and, as a result, it had to use gravel that had been extracted from a site 20 miles away, at an additional up-front cost of $60 000. If the shire had received permission to extract the gravel from the site near the road development, a rehabilitation program would have been undertaken and reforestation would have taken place. It must be remembered that areas of Crown land under which gravel deposits can be found do not support much vegetation. If one extracts the gravel and then top­ dresses the site and replaces the topsoil, vegetation appropriate to the locality can be successfully grown. That is a major benefit to the environment and saves the government, local council or whatever many dollars by reducing transportation costs involved in obtaining gravel from other sites. I support the well-considered amendment of the honourable member for Gippsland East. I do not see how honourable members can walk away from the amendment without being hypocritical in their own minds. If they analyse the amendment they will see that it sets out clearly the definition of a wilderness park as: an area of more than 20 000 hectares, free of non-indigenous flora and non-indigenous fauna, and which has been continuously managed in accordance with traditional techniques so as to retain the characteristics of Australian landscapes prior to European settlement. Honourable members should recognise that in her maiden speech the honourable member for Greensborough was absolutely identifying with that subject. The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, and her colleagues on the government side of the Chamber, would be hypocritical about the concept of national parks if they voted against the reasoned amendment proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland East. Dr NAPTHINE (Portland)-I congratulate the honourable member for Greensborough on her election and on her maiden speech in this debate today. I hope she has a fruitful time in Parliament. Mr Brown-A long three years! Dr NAPTHINE-As I am reminded, a long and fruitful three years. There is a need for Parliament and the Bill to more adequately deal with the definition of"wilderness" because it has not been properly defined. The common law does not adequately cover it. Although the general concepts proposed in the reasoned amendment by the honourable member for Gippsland East are sound, some of the wording needs restructure and requires further examination. I refer particularly to the use of the words "free of non-indigenous flora and non-indigenous fauna". I have some difficulty 1652 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill with what is absolutely free. It would stretch the limits to disqualify a large area of land from being a wilderness because it contained one blackberry plant or one rabbit. I agree proposed that a wilderness area should be much better defined than the inadequate-or lack of-definition provided in the Bill. The honourable member for Gippsland East suggests that a wilderness area should be a minimum of 20000 hectares; this may be appropriate. It certainly should exist as a traditional Australian landscape. Honourable members should seriously consider the reasoned amendment. Many speakers representing the opposition parties have referred to their concern about the management of the land and the fact that the name on the gate-whether it is called a national park, a State park or wilderness land-is not relevant. The important point is how the land is managed for the benefit of all Victorians. I refer to the House clause 29 which highlights some proposed new parks, including the Dergholm State Park, which is in the electorate that I represent. Mr W. D. McGrath-And in my electorate. Dr NAPTHINE-It also adjoins the electorate represented by the honourable member for Lowan. It is a park that we share jointly, and we often meet at Dergholm, which is an active community, to attend functions. It is a pleasure to work with the honourable member for Lowan. The proposed State park is north-east of Dergholm and comprises 10 400 hectares. I shall refer to the park as an example of issues that should be clarified in the Bill. The features of the proposed park include the famous Baileys Rocks, a unique feature of green granite and a pleasurable tourist venue. It also has woodland; open forests of brown stringybark; heath, which is Victoria's floral emblem; swamp areas; and mixed woodlands comprising river red gums, yellow gums, manna gums, swamp gums and pink gums. The river red gums are the most prominent and are characteristic of western Victoria and of much of the Portland electorate. There is also a large range offauna, including native fauna such as the red-tailed black cockatoo. I have received representations from local people expressing concern about the proposed park. The local people recognise the value of the land and its forests. Mr Murray Davis, who is a prominent citizen landowner of Dergholm, represents many of their concerns in a letter to me. He states: The major concern is when an area is proclaimed a State park, there is not any extra money provided to supervise and maintain the area as a park. Eradication of vermin, especially rabbits, is very crucial in this area. The Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands has continually 1080-poisoned this area and this has kept the rabbit population down. Will this continue if it is proclaimed a park? I ask the Minister to address that question. Mr Davis also refers to the important issue of fire control and expresses concern that when the area becomes a State park it will attract more people and hence increase the fire risk. He states: This area continually needs cool bums to clean up the debris and overgrowth every few years, so we hope that this would continue. Mr Davis is concerned that the area should be maintained with minimum risk of fire to adjoining land-holders. The local people have some serious concerns about this issue. I have not had the same direct experience as has the honourable member for Gippsland East with fire threatening my life and property, but I have had experience working in the aftermath of grassfires and bushfires. In my former position as a veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs I was often involved National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1653

in examining livestock-from farming properties, and also native animals-that had been burnt. It was an horrific experience. I recall one fire in the Poolaijelo area, which is not far north of the Dergholm State Park. The Minister should be aware that this is a fire prone area and that, with the various species of plants, good fire control measures must be taken to ensure that the area is maintained for the benefit of the plant species, tourist potential and Victorians in general, as well as protecting local residents. The concerns expressed by the Dergholm community reflect general concerns by other Victorians about the ability of the department to adequately manage the areas under their control. I shall propose to the Minister some methods to assist in alleviating these problems. Members on this side of the House are always keen to put positive suggestions forward so that the government can carefully examine them. Too often constituents raise with me as their local member their concerns about problems with vermin and noxious weeds on Crown lands that are not adequately controlled and, in many cases, cause infestations and problems on neighbouring properties. When the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands takes on these areas of increased national parks it has an additional responsibility to deal adequately with the problems created by vermin and noxious weeds. It is important to involve local people in the management of these parks. I suggest that local people could be involved on committees of management to manage the parks rather than simply to be part of an advisory committee. This committee of management could be actively involved in working with the department to properly manage the parks in the best interests of all Victorians. The people living near these parks and in the surrounding area have great knowledge that they can offer professional officers of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands to manage parks for the benefit of all Victorians and for the safer use of these areas and for the benefit of adjoining landowners. Local government should also be involved in the management of parks, especially in the development of fire protection plans. I ask the Minister to seriously consider involving local people in carrying out fire protection plans. They would then be able to protect their communities while managing and improving Victoria's assets. I am reluctant to suggest that more funds should be provided to the department to assist in managing these parks. Therefore, if the talents and willingness of local people are used, Victoria can save its resources. The government faces immense problems with the health needs of Victorians, road funding, education and, indeed, an area close to my heart, funding for intellectual disability services and housing for people with intellectual disabilities. The government has priorities in its funding requirements, so anything that can gain a better result at lower cost to the government should be seriously considered. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to another suggestion of Dergholm residents, which is the placement of a large tourist map in their township. The obvious location, because it is such a "big" town, consisting of one crossroad and a number of buildings, would be outside the Menzies Hotel, a well-known establishment. The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands should handle this issue rather than the Minister for Tourism, because the installation of a map will have greater benefits for the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. The Dergholm area has large areas of swampland, dry weather tracks and wild flower areas that can be sign posted by strategically changing the map during the appropriate seasons. The map 1654 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill should indicate when the heath and the gums are flowering and so on. It would assist in getting better and safer utilisation of the park areas with less risk for people using the park. The map would not only have tourist potential, but would assist the department in the management of the park. I hope the Minister takes up that suggestion. Other areas of local interest could be highlighted, and I refer to Warrock Homestead, Baileys Rocks, Biltstons Big Red Gum and the camping reserves. It is important to point out the camping reserves to people because the park will not have on-site management and if the department wishes people to camp in or near the park it is important to tell them where they can camp safely with minimum damage to the park. In conclusion, the Opposition does not oppose the proposed legislation and believes the amendment of the Act offers a chance to look again at some of the matters, particularly the definition of wilderness. It is most important for the Minister to examine the positive suggestions made by honourable members on this side of the Chamber in order to develop a system that will effectively and better manage the areas of Crown land for which she is responsible. That is a more important criterion than the name on the gate. Mr PERTON (Doncaster)-I address two of the three main elements of the Bill. The first is the provision that inserts a new Division lA in the principal Act establishing the category of wilderness parks in the excellent system of parks in Victoria. The second concerns clause 26, which inhibits mining and exploration in national, State and wilderness parks. I have entered the debate on the Bill from a proud heritage of Liberal, State and Federal governments of the past and the existing Liberal State governments. The achievements of those Liberal governments are to be contrasted with the efforts of the Australian Labor Party, both at the Federal and State levels. Although I congratulate the honourable member for Greensborough on her maiden speech, I must confess that I was nonplussed at some of the claims that she made during her speech. I shall, firstly, examine the record of the Liberal Party at the State level. The national parks legislation stands as a monument to the former Liberal government. The Environment Protection Act, which was one of the far-reaching Acts of its time, is a tribute to the foresight of that government. The vast areas of national, State and metropolitan parks were acquired and preserved during the term of the Hamer and Thompson Liberal governments. During the period of those governments these parks were extremely well-resourced and well-managed. At the Federal level, Liberal governments signed the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic Treaty Act 1960 was introduced by a Liberal government. The Fraser Liberal government abolished whaling in Albany in Western Australia. It established the Fraser, Kakadu, Uluru and Christmas Island national parks, and prevented sandmining on Fraser Island. Dr Vaugban-Bring back Fraser! Mr PERTON-In terms of the commitment to the international and national environment, Malcolm Fraser made a far better and longer lasting contribution than the present government. The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, moves from a status of developer to conservationist, depending on which way the Gallup poll happens to be moving that month. The Labor Party has not had a proud record of environmental concern during the term of the Hawke government. Indeed, I note that the honourable member for Clayton smiles at those remarks, perhaps more from embarrassment than joy. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1655

Mr Maclellan-The honourable member said, "Bring back Fraser!" Mr PERTON-The honourable member for Berwick says, by way of interjection, that the honourable member for Clayton has endorsed the stand of the former Fraser Liberal government. The Liberal heritage will continue under Andrew Peacock, the new Leader of the Liberal Party, who will lead the Liberal Party to government at the next election and continue the fine record of commitment to the national and international environment that past Liberal governments have shown. The honourable member for Greensborough asserted that the Labor government has increased the size of national parks and no doubt there have been some small additions. The fact is that the Labor government has demonstrated a lack of commitment to national parks and its failure to resource them has led to a great deal of damage as a result of the intrusion of man and of erosion and the lack of control of feral pests. Although the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands cannot be blamed for that, her predecessor, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, is very much to blame for the degradation of the national parks in Victoria. Over Easter I spent approximately five days in national parks and I met three different rangers, all of whom complained that although there was adequate manpower and equipment the government had failed to provide the budget necessary for the continued running of the equipment and, indeed, for the useful employment ofworkers currently engaged by the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. The honourable member for Greensborough claimed that the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act was one of the great initiatives of the government. The Act could not have passed Parliament without the support of the Liberal Party and it did receive that support. Once again, the government has failed totally to provide the resources necessary to implement the provisions of the flora and fauna guarantee. I note that there are some representatives of conservation groups in the Public Gallery and almost all of those groups have decried the government's failure to adequately resource the department so that it can fulfil its obligations under the flora and fauna guarantee. An article in the Sunday Observer dated 19 March 1989, written by Brett Wright, reports on an interview with a number of workers within the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. This is his conclusion: The government's much-vaunted conservation strategy-released two years ago-remains largely a paper exercise and that less money is being spent in vital areas of environmental protection. "The level of protection for the environment in Victoria is at a 20-year low," said one government adviser who, for obvious reasons, does not want to named. "The scientists in the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands ought to be able to stand up and say something about what's needed to protect the environment. That's been stifled because there's a paranoia in the Labor Party about having the power in the hands of the Minister," he said. Some are saying the causes are deep-seated in Labor politics. Others, more involved with the bureaucracy upon which the government depends, blame what one described as "a loss of professionalism in the flow of advice to the Minister." Whatever the reasons, the Cain government has, to date, presided over: widespread abuse of environmental safeguards in relation to logging, particularly in national parks areas; a succession of environmentally damaging accidents in alpine resort areas, including oil spills and landslides; the loss of valued scientists at the Marine Science Laboratories, and a consequent decline in research on marine ecology; 1656 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

the approval of a huge copper mining project in East Gippsland in contravention of the government's own new law on flora and fauna; a failure to provide rural planning regions with regional environment officers to deal with the problems of inappropriate land use; widespread breaches of the mining laws relating to environmental damage and rehabilitation; a failure to quickly implement sections of the government's conservation strategy, including roadside vegetation and urban forests programs. Only two days ago I raised a matter on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting in relation to the illegal broombrush collection from Crown land areas in western Victoria. Mr Maclellan-How dare you talk about broombrush in the House! Mr PERTON-Picking up the interjection of the honourable member for Berwick, I shall be cautious in relation to the use of sexist language. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! The honourable member for Berwick is out of order. Mr PERTON-I would not risk the wrath of the more sensitive members on the government benches-the honourable member for Wantirna having been described as "precious" on radio this morning. The honourable member for Greensborough was involved in one of the dirtiest election campaigns conducted in Victoria. Outrageous slurs were made against the Liberal Party candidate, Mrs Margaret Brown. Mrs Brown's commitment to environmental issues was challenged without any basis. Her involvement in community organisations was denied by Labor stooges, whose allegations were disproven later by the exhibition of minutes showing not only that Mrs Brown had attended meetings but also that the honourable member for Greensborough was present at those same meetings. What level of integrity is there in the government? Indeed, there is no integrity in relation to its actions about conservation. Far be it from the government to be able to claim a proud record of conservation within the Greensborough area. One could suggest that the Labor Party is responsible for helping to brown the Greensborough electorate by continuing to allow subdivisions with complete land clearance. The government has failed to deal with the questions of double occupancy of sites within the Greensborough electorate. Mr Leigh-What about the new city on the other side? Mr PERTON-The honourable member for Malvern raises the issue of the Plenty corridor-the answer to the government's development plan without any environmental safeguards. Mr Steggall-There is a $40 000 subsidy per block out there! The DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! Interjections from the honourable member for Swan Hill are out of order. Mr PERTON-What will the government do about traffic, pollution and sewerage problems in the Plenty corridor? There was no answer to that question until three or four days before the Greensborough by-election and then it was only a promise to consult. The Labor government has been guilty of misrepresentation in its expression of commitment to the environment. That can be amply demonstrated by examining the actions of the government in the administration of the Department of Conservation, National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1657

Forests and Lands. The present Minister cannot be blamed; her predecessor, the Minister for Education, is to blame. I turn to the less than proud record of Labor governments in other States. The New South Wales government was thrown out of office some months ago. The Premier has repeatedly berated the Greiner Liberal government in this House for increasing water charges. Why is the Greiner government increasing its water charges by approximately $80 per household? It is dealing with a problem that has not been dealt with for almost 200 years of European settlement, namely the discharge of sewage from Sydney into the ocean. The New South Wales Premier has promised to deal with a problem that was ignored by the previous Labor government. To that end he is prepared to say to the New South Wales people, "This is what it will cost; you pay it and we will do it". That is a way to fund government programs; that is a way towards good government­ government that does not increase State debt, as the Victorian Labor government has been guilty of doing. While dealing with the subject of ocean outfall of sewage, one may ask what the Labor government is doing about the sewage outfall at Black Rock, which handles all sewage from Geelong. Some minor treatment is applied and the sewage is pumped into the ocean. From a reading of a report of the appropriate water authority tabled in Parliament two months ago-one learns that there have been incidents of severe pollution as a result of that outfall. The works were licensed by the government's administration-not by the present Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands but by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Even while in opposition in Victoria, the Liberal Party has continued its proud record of achievement in conservation matters. Last year the party supported the new East Gippsland national parks proposal, thereby protecting the forests of East Gippsland. During the last week of sittings the party supported the passage of the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill, and most importantly moved an amendment providing that an objective of the government in managing national parks was to provide for their proper resourcing and management, something which the government could never claim to have done. I am certainly proud that the Liberal Party is supporting this Bill. I turn to Part 2 of the Bill, which deals particularly with wilderness parks. As the honourable member for Gippsland East said, it is true that there is no definition of "wilderness" iri the Bill. We need to turn to the common law and to other jurisdictions for guidance on what it would mean within Victoria. The 1989 edition of the Oxford Dictionary arrived in the Library this week. Dr Napthine-He has read it already! Mr PERTON-I thank the honourable member for Portland for his confidence. The definition of "wilderness" in that dictionary is: Wild or uncultivated land. Distinguished from desert, in that the latter denotes an uninhabitable and uncultivable region, and implies entire lack of vegetation. What is important and what should be pleasing for the honourable member for Gippsland East is that the word "region" is used, thereby denoting a large area of land. A second definition of "wilderness" is: A wild or uncultivated region or tract of land, uninhabited, or inhabited only by wild animals; 'a tract of solitude and savageness.' Mr Steggall interjected. 1658 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

Mr PERTON-It is a little like the natural habitat of the honourable member for Swan Hill. The definitions are derived from the thirteenth century. For the interest of honourable members, a further definition of wilderness is as follows: in the wilderness (in allusion to Numbers xiv. 33), ofa politician, political party, etc. One hopes the Minister will be placed in that position in three and a half years! I could quote the definition cited by the honourable member for Berwick, which was the subject of criticism by the honourable member for Gippsland East: a wilderness area is a large tract of natural land, remote and essentially undisturbed by the influences of a modem technological society. The honourable member for Greensborough cited United States of America legislation, and I shall rely on her quotation in respect of those matters. The honourable member for Gippsland East has moved a reasoned amendment to the second-reading motion. His amendment proposes to insert his own definition of wilderness. His reasoned amendment raises more questions than it answers. The honourable member uses the phrase "free of non-indigenous flora and non-indigenous fauna". What does that mean? As the honourable member for Portland asked: Does it mean one rabbit? Does it mean that if there is one person present it is not a wilderness? Does it mean that, if the honourable members for Swan Hill and Gippsland East were to transport weeds into a wilderness area, it would no longer be a wilderness area? The words "continuously managed" are included in the honourable member's reasoned amendment, whatever that expression may mean. Does it mean that an area that has not been continuously subject to a management re~me no longer qualifies as a wilderness area? The Liberal Party is not into extremIsm so, unlike the socialists of the government or those who are opposed to the Bill, it will take the appropriate middle ground in its attempt to protect the environment and heritage of all Victorians. I acknowledge the honourable member for Gippsland East's comments in relation to the importance of the definition. Only last week Sid Spindler, President of the Australian Democrats, alleged, as reported in the Age, that there was a wilderness on the route of the proposed Eastern Arterial Road. Having walked and ridden along that route several hundred times, and having taken my friends, the honourable member for Bulleen and an honourable member for Templestowe Province, Mr Skeggs, I issued a challenge to Mr Spindler by press release that if he could find one piece of wilderness on the route of the proposed Eastern Arterial Road I would be prepared to lie in front of the bulldozers for him. I am in little danger from the bulldozers that will be moving onto that area shortly to extend the Eastern Arterial Road. Part 2 of the Bill will have a number of safeguards imposed on it by the foreshadowed amendments. One can assume that the two areas that are defined in proposed Schedule Two A comply with everyone's views of wilderness. That has not been disputed by any honourable member, and I did not hear the honourable member for Gippsland East challenge the inclusion of the two areas in the proposed schedule. The Land Conservation Council is to make recommendations as to the declaration of wilderness areas and will ascertain whether further areas in Victoria should be designated wilderness areas. The amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Berwick proposes that any other wilderness areas that are to be proclaimed will be so defined in legislation by this Parliament. It is important and right that it should be so. The reason for the declaration of wilderness parks has been covered adequately in the Victorian National Parks Association pamphlet which poses the question: why is wilderness important? There are seven reasons why wilderness is important: Wilderness areas have important educational, scientific and recreational values. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1659

Wilderness areas provide a refuge for our native plants and animals so that they may continue to flourish in the wild. Wilderness areas contain a rich pool of genetic diversity. They provide opportunities for self-reliant minimal impact recreation. Wilderness areas provide a refuge for people to escape the stresses of modem living-they provide opportunities for solitude and peace far from the influence of modem society. Wilderness areas are a valuable baseline against which we can measure damage and degradation elsewhere in our environment., Wilderness is a diminishing and irreplaceable asset. I support those seven points. The amendment to the principal Act with regard to mining in Victoria's parks formalises a twenty-year practice of both the Liberal Party and the government of not approving new mInes within those national parks. It is true that mining continues within areas that have been subsequently proclaimed as national parks, but in each case it is a justified practice and one that must continue to be subject to the scrutiny not only of the government but also of this Parliament. It is proper also that any mining within proclaimed wilderness parks, national parks or State parks should be subject to proper public scrutiny; there is no better place for proper public scrutiny than in Parliament. The government has portrayed itself as the protector of the environment and has attempted to contrast its actions with those of non-socialist parties, but no mention has been made of the actions of parties that the government regards as conservative. This year the President of the United States of America, George Bush, made one startling choice for his new administration. A recent article in the Age states: Mr William Reilly, 49, president of the World Wildlife Fund in the United States and chairman of an environmental think-tank, has been put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency-a right-wing administration has chosen a dyed-in-the-wool greenie to run the EP A. Sure, Mr Bush went through the election campaign talking about his concern for the environment, just as he kept saying he wanted to make America "a gentler, kinder nation". But few really thought he meant it. Mr Reilly's appointment was the loudest signal of many since he won office that he did. His choice ofMr Reilly for the sensitive post ofEPA administrator-overseeing such issues as the US response to the greenhouse effect, acid rain, enforcing air emission standards and prosecuting polluters­ was a stunner for a Republican President. Only a month ago the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, hosted a conference in London at which 123 countries talked about the threat to the ozone layer. Mrs Thatcher was prepared to go further and faster than this government. If one examines the government's approach to the control of chlorofluorocarbons, one finds that its actions are belated; it did not go far enough; it followed the Tasmanian Liberal government legislation which, at the time it was passed, was the most far-reaching in the world. The government rejected a private member's Bill from the Liberal Party in another place last year to bring about the control of chlorofluorocarbons. The government's proposed plan of action in relation to CFCs does not go as far as the Liberal Party would go, and one must criticise the government for its lack of care. In concluding, I turn briefly to the question of the greenhouse effect because that has so much to do with the preservation of our natural environment. In that sense Victoria has special responsibilities. In the financial year 1987-88 the State Electricity Commission, as a consequence of electricity production, produced approximately 32·8 tonnes of carbon dioxide. In late 1988 the former Minister for Industry, Technology 1660 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill and Resources, now the Minister for the Arts, said that he felt Victoria had a significant responsibility to reduce emissions because of its heavy reliance on brown coal. His statement was supported by the findings of the Natural Resources and Environment Committee's reports on Victoria's electricity needs beyond the mid-1990s. In relation to the proposed new development, Loy Yang B3 and B4, item 21 of the report states: No final commitment to contracts and expenditure to construct Loy Yang B units 3 and 4 should be given until the latest time consistent with maintaining a reliable electricity supply system. The government has acted irresponsibly in relation to those findings. One has only to go back to the pre-election campaign in September last year when the honourable member for Footscray, the former Deputy Premier, and a former Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, promised the people of the Latrobe Valley that construction of Loy Yang B3 and B4 would begin within three years. At that time the former Minister described the decision as one which will allow Victorians to look ahead to a future fuelled by the Latrobe Valley energy industry. That is a complete abrogation of responsibility, not only on behalf of the government but also on behalf of the Victorian people. While Australians are concerned about the fate of the Amazon Valley and rainforests, this government continues to produce electricity by use of brown coal instead of using alternative fuels such as that suggested by the Broken Hill corporation last year at the Greenhouse 1988 Conference. Perhaps I could briefly quote Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd: Assuming a median growth rate in power demand of 3·5 per cent a year to the year 2001, it is expected that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria will need to produce 46 000 gigawatt hours of electricity by the end of the century. Ifall new power plants built in the intervening years are coal-fired, we can expect the carbon dioxide output from the State Eletricity Commission of Victoria in 2000-01 to be about 46·6 million tonnes a year, a 42 per cent rise on current levels. It is grossly irresponsible of this government and, if we, the Victorian people, accept it, it will be grossly irresponsible of us. I support the Bill. I support the foreshadowed amendments of the honourable member for Berwick but I have difficulty with the amendment moved by the honourable member for East Gippsland because I believe it adopts the same extremist approach that he accuses some-as he would call them-greenies of adopting in relation to some matters. Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth)-I should like to make a few comments about the proposed legislation. I was part of a Liberal government which took an Australian initiative to establish the Land Conservation Council and, through the council, to commence a system of national parks within this State. It was envisaged that at least 5 per cent of the area of the State would eventually end up in the form of national parks. It seemed to me that the sensible thing to do was to make sure that the Land Conservation Council was charged with the responsibility, not only of finding the most suitable places to put into national parks, but also, prior to any declaration of a national park or any allied declaration-whether it is State park, a wilderness area or any other designation for that matter establishing and documenting the assets within that area. Conversely, if the declaration were made, the cost of administering that declaration should be known and intelligent people should be able to assess the cost, on the one hand, of locking up that particular asset and, on the other hand, be able to assess the benefit. Of course, none of that has happened and we have seen the community steamrolled, in fear really of the unknown, into contemplating the effects of the depletion of the National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1661 ozone layer in various parts of the globe and the effects of the greenhouse gases. The ordinary citizens understanding, if anyone understands this phenomena, tend towards feeling that rapid and extensive action needs to be taken to preserve trees, and to plant trees for that matter. I have no objection to that but we are charged in this Parliament with responsibility over not only to some extent the human assets of the State but also its physical assets. It is irresponsible of us to be moving rapidly towards locking up considerable areas of the State foreyer without knowing what it is we are locking up. I do not mean to imply that I am opposed in any way to national parks or any of the goals of conservation or land restoration. Quite the contrary. Not only am I wholeheartedly in favour of them, but I have in may ways actively practised it while I was a farmer, very much to the increase in the asset of the land for which I was responsible. So I have seen the benefit. However, if someone does not alert the legislature to the huge amount of asset potential which is being denied to future generations, and if someone at some stage does not put in train a mechanism to assess this and its cost, I fear with a little knowledge the majority of the members of the community, through fear of the unknown, will opt to put pressure on the government to increase the areas that are locked up under the banner of national parks. That may be a good thing or it may not be a good thing. In effect, the cost benefit studies that I am indicating, if they were done properly, would give us that information. We do not have that information available and I do not see any signs of that process being put in place. I fear, therefore, that we will continue, as politicians do continue, to try to make good people of ourselves and give the perception to our electorates of some sort of sympathy and performance. We will simply drift into the syndrome of capping off, for a perceived improvement, the actions of the previous government in adding yet more to an evergrowing lock-up phase for national parks without knowing what it is. The sort of assets that are being locked up obviously include forest, water and mineral assets, and stock grazing potential. To give honourable members some idea of the magnitude of the value, this State now imports in excess of $1 billion a year in timber products which could be grown in Victoria. I am not speaking of gimmick timbers like teak that cannot be grown here, but of timbers that can be grown in the State. Our bill for the importation of timber into Victoria is now in excess of $1 billion. The problem is not getting better; it is getting worse. The deficit factor is growing at double the rate of inflation and that multiplier effect gives some idea of the mammoth and worsening problem that asset denial is likely to cause. If these resources are not adequately managed and replenished other people will do the job for us, in this generation or the next. Others have attempted to take such action in the past, and I am sure that history will repeat itself. I urge the Minister to hold off and to contemplate the long-term effects of the actions she and the government are taking. The actions may be justified; certainly they should not be taken for reasons of political one-upmanship. I ask the Minister to compile a register of the assets that will be locked up rather than taking an emotional attitude and attempting to outdo her predecessor or the previous Liberal government. Once the declaration of the land is made and the wilderness areas referred to in the Bill become part of a national park, change will be very difficult to effect. Government members take the attitude that, by passing the Bill and mounting a public relations campaign, they will convince Victorians of the wonderful things they are doing. That will be far from the case. I live in an electorate in which a number of areas are locked up under different designations. Although I do not object to that, a person who wants to find a prolific 1662 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill growth of blackberries, tall and colourful ragwort and plump and productive rabbits will find them in those parks. Mr Evans-Do they have any marijuana in them yet? Mr I. W. SMITH-I do not know what marijuana looks like-I do not have the honourable member for Gippsland East's expertise-but if the honourable member accepts my invitation to come to my electorate he can look for marijuana plants in those parts. The government is indulging in the cynical exercise of political grandstanding by rushing to lock up more and more areas in national and State parks, yet does not have the sincerity to put its money where its mouth is. It is difficult for the Minister and the government to put their money where their mouths are because, as a result of government profligacy, the State debt has trebled and Victorians now owe far more per head of population than they did when the Labor Party came to office in 1982. Recently the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands flew by helicopter to my electorate without advising me, but I have come to expect such impolite and undignified behaviour from government Ministers. Mr Maclellan-An imperial visit! Mr I. W. SMITH-Yes, it was an imperial visit by helicopter to enable the Minister to gain expert knowledge, at first-hand, of some helicopter landing pads in my electorate! If only the Minister would spend sufficient time to see what is occurring in her department. Despite the additional staff that have been employed by the department and the expenditure of ever increasing amounts of money, because of the stupid mismanagement of her department most departmental officers spend most of their time attending meetings and shuffling ever larger heaps of paper, without achieving one iota of additional effect. The problems of vermin and noxious weeds in national parks, problems to which I have referred, are not being addressed. Certainly signs are put up heralding the proclamation of a national park or the designation of a particular area, with the department's name engraved in green underneath. People who travel to those areas from the city to fill their lungs with clean air and their eyes with new sights will no doubt be impressed by the government's activity; but those who care to rook deeper will discover an appalling lack of resources to deal with the managerial difficulties in head office. People who should be in the field to gain an understanding of what is required are unable to get the job done because of departmental administrative shortcomings. Mr Evans-They're frustrated, aren't they? Mr I. W. SMITH-Yes, departmental officers are very frustrated. When the Minister's predecessor was transferred to muck up education, many departmental officers in my area came to see me and asked, with eager anticipation, what the new Minister would be like. I tried my best to paint a picture of improvement; but I was not successful and their faces fell. Mr Walsh-You're a failure! Mr I. W. SMITH-When you have spent fifteen years in government we will see what you have achieved. Mr Walsh interjected. Mr I. W. SMITH-The Minister for Property and Services refers by insult to double dipping. I shall deal with that interjection. As I did, the Minister will receive National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1663 precisely what he is entitled to-nothing more and nothing less. Returning to the Bill-- Mr Walsh interjected. Mr I. W. SMITH-I thank the Minister for his interjection. The Minister was one of those in the helicopter who briefly visited my electorate. A great deal of hype was created for that visit by the Ministers. In a cargo-cult fashion, it was promised that, after the Ministers had arrived, they would give out goodies to the land-holders involved in the s~heme. So inspired were members of the community by this promised generosity-- Mr Walsh interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Vaughan)-Order! The Minister will have his chance in due course, ifhe seeks it. Mr I. W. SMITH-So inspired were members of the local community by this promised generosity that the only people who turned up were a handful of farmers directly involved, with their wives and children, and all the officers of the Department of Conservation, Forests, and Lands in the area-and the latter group formed the overwhelming majority of those in attendance. Mr Walsh-The local member didn't turn up. Mr I. W. SMITH-The local member did not turn up because neither of the Ministers had the courtesy to advise me of the proposed visit. That is nothing new. Unfortunately, it is an insulting and bad habit that is increasingly perpetrated by goverment Ministers. The esteem, or lack of it, with which the government and its insincere actions are regarded in my electorate and elsewhere is such that government Ministers were not able to command a large attendance-apart from their advisers and other staff-at what should have been an important function. I have no problem with the concept of such a function at all, but nobody comes along because the government derides, ridicules and engages in only cynical thoughts about what it considers to be total disregard for the proper management of the areas that it is hell-be~t on declaring. Honourable members know why that is the case. They do not have to be cynical; they need only to consider the contrast between what the government says and what it does. The government dresses up these sorts of Bills and its actions for public consumption in the metropolitan area, knowing that most people in the metropolitan area will not go into those areas. Even if they did, they would probably regard a rabbit as a friendly little chap; they would probably regard blackberries as something nice to pick and eat when they are in season; and they would probably regard pretty yellow flowers as something to be picked for Mother's Day. If the government were at all sincere in what it wanted to do it would make sure that the officers who have the knowledge and capacity out there in the field have sufficient time in which to get on with the job rather than being required to be involved in meeting after meeting and report after report, ad nauseam. They are bogged down with the worst examples of Parkinson's law that one could possibly find. I shall move away from that subject slightly and attempt to demonstrate to the Minister for Water Resources, who is at the table and who ought also to visit the areas and inspect them, that on the other hand the government pretends to the forest industry that the industry has adequate resources to keep it in a viable position. If that is so, how is it that mountain ash that is probably fifteen or twenty years immature is 1664 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill now being felled in the Otways? As a result, at least 60 per cent of the timber in those trees is going to waste. One might ask, "Why do we not put this into pulp and at least make some money out of it in that way?" But, no, that is not allowed; one must leave it there. What happens when one leaves the unused timber there? The entangled, crisscross of unusable timber-that is, unusable because the government says so, although it ought not to be unusable-is left on the forest floor in such quantities that there is utterly no hope of proper regeneration so that in future the forest will be renewed, provide the capacity to absorb its share of the gases from the atmosphere and, in time, provide much needed timber for the State. The performance of the government, in its assessment of the resource assets, in the deployment of its staff, and in its use of available money, stands condemned. It has no knowledge of or interest in what is actually happening at the forest floor, or at the boundaries of the national parks. So long as the officers of the department plaster a filthy great sign "National Park, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands"; and so long as the government gets its public relations machine operating so that some announcement can be made and a photograph of the Minister can appear in the daily newspapers so that the metropolitan people are deluded, the government believes it has done its job. The reality is far from it. What the government has not done is obvious to those who live and work in the area. The government will stand condemned forever for its two-faced approach to national parks. It will stand condemned forever for its lack of proper and adequate provision for resource development within State parks and forest areas. In the end, someone will have to pick up the mess from the forest floor. The unfortunate fact is that, in many instances, it will probably be too late to pick up the mess. Already, because of poor regeneration over the past few years, there are areas of inappropriate forest regrowth because of the light and shade effect and the rubbish on the forest floor. This weak regeneration will never provide healthy forests, at least until there is a wildfire hot enough to burn it all into ash completely when a natural form of regeneration will take place. However, where there is deliberate interference by man in the first instance, it has to be followed up by deliberate interference to achieve the most natural regeneration possible. This is not occurring and, therefore, the potential asset of viable productive forests for the generations ahead is depleted because of this lack of activity and lack of funding. I shall relate to the House the story of what occurred last year when I received complaints from constituents about roadside weeds in the springtime. In an attempt to find out from the Bellarine office of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands why the weeds were not being attended to, I was told that a survey was being undertaken of vermin and noxious weeds throughout the area. When I questioned the officers a little more, saying that they had had literally tens of years in which to carry out such a survey and it was time that they knew where the vermin and noxious weeds existed throughout the area, they had to admit that basically they did know where they were but, in fact, they had had to resort to this so-called survey to cover up the fact that they actually had no money available to pay for fuel for the vehicles to transport the spray to the area. They had plenty of spray, but they had no money left in their fuel account to take the vehicles out there to actually spray the weeds. There is no point spraying some weeds for about six months of the year; it is very critical to spray them in the early spring so that they do not flower and seed. Yet, at National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1665 the most critical period of the year, when the noxious weeds should have been sprayed, officers of the department were sitting in their offices making telephone calls­ apparently they had plenty of money in their telephone account-asking all land­ holders where the vermin and noxious weeds were so that their survey could be completed. The officers knew where the vermin and noxious weeds were. The survey was simply a sham designed to cover up hopeless administration at the central office, which was bogging down those at the wQrk front. If the central office would only get out of their way and let them get on with management at the local government level, it may be possible for at least some useful management to take place. However, the central office is so top-heavy and requires so much reporting that the people with the hands-on knowledge, skills and capacity to do these things are so stultified by it all that they may as well not be in the area at all. Mr Evans-In many cases, those who should be in the bush have been left to sit behind the desks. Mr I. W. SMITH-That is absolutely correct. Therefore, although the Bill should be supported because the public is very much in favour of the legislature declaring more national parks, it needs to be said that there is a certain cynicism in the government's intention. The government is more interested in votes than it is genuinely interested in the environment. It is more interested in quickly locking up areas for public appeal than it is in properly assessing the asset base it is locking up and making proper provision for future generations. I hope the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands will accept my invitation, which I extended to her previously and which I now extend again, to visit the electorate ofPolwarth, where she will see everything that I have explained today and, it is hoped, learn that the track that the government is on is not the right track if the national parks, forests and areas of land under the care of the Crown are to be preserved and enhanced for future generations. Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-Being a Thursday afternoon, this must be a debate on conservation. It seems to me that the House has recently had this discussion. It is interesting to dwell on the reason why this Bill and the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill which was passed last week, were not dealt with together. The honourable member for Polwarth outlined the reason very well: the government has more interest in the public's perception of what it is doing than it has in actual conservation issues. Activists from all sides are talking about the environment, conservation, the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer and so on. Society is still trying to find the direction in which it should travel into the future. In many ways,we are travelling into the unknown. I suggest that all honourable members desire the same thing with regard to conservation, to conserve the natural assets of this nation to ensure that we pass them on to future generations in a condition better than when we received them. We must ensure that use is made of the assets. I am scratching my head in an effort to find out what the government's legislative program on conservation is. I am not sure whether backbench members of the government know what the hell is going on, but the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands and her Cabinet colleagues know that the conservation movement is about votes and not about conserving public land. Session 1989-54 1666 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

I congratulate the honourable member for Greensborough on her maiden speech. She has been the only member of the government to tell the House how wonderful the Bill is. She said the Bill creates five new national parks, but the designated land in the Bill is not new. I assure the honourable member for Greensborough and other members of the government that the areas included in the Bill-the topography and ecology of the land-were in existence yesterday and the year before. The Bill changes only names, and sooner or later people will understand what many country politicians have been saying for years: the conservation argument should be about the management of public land. There are many designations for public land, and there will soon be a big debate about what is proposed in north-west Victoria. I want honourable members to keep in mind the fact that we are talking about the management of public land and not about what the land is called. During the past couple of days the Victorian National Parks Association has sent copies of a document to all honourable members, and I read mine with interest. It refers to the creation of the five parks included in the Bill. Some one and a half pages of the document is taken up with mining issues, which is only one of many issues that must be addressed with regard to all public land and not just wilderness areas. What would happen if gold were found in one of the parks included in the Bill? I wonder how the provisions of the Bill would stop people from mining in a park then. I believe they would not hold up. The intent of the Bill is to keep heavy mining out of national parks. I should have thought the power the Minister has under the Acts she has at her disposal would allow her to stop that. The mining veto for public land has some interesting spin-offs. The things the Victorian National Parks Association wants for our national parks and public lands are the same as those wanted by most Victorians. The question is how to achieve them. The honourable member for Gippsland East put an extremely good case for the need for proper management of public lands. The lockup concept of the government is not in the best interests of the government or the land managers who are charged with responsibility for those areas. The debates raging across the State-country politicians seem to bear the brunt-are doing nothing to improve the education of city people on what management of public lands is all about. In considering these matters, rarely do the Land Conservation Council, the Minister or the government take note of the views of country people. I recall an occasion when the Land Conservation Council informed me that representatives would be visiting my electorate. I wrote to the council saying I looked forward to meeting its representatives on a certain day. Within a few days I received a further communication informing me that the original correspondence was a courtesy letter telling me the representatives would be in the area. The second letter informed me that the representatives did not wish to meet me or discuss issues with me. That made me a little wild, but the reason why the council representatives did not wish to speak with me will become known. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the debate on public land management. Swan Hill has many areas of public land ranging from State parks to flora and fauna reserves. The problem with the management of those small areas is borne out when farmers, councils or even local members approach the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands for assistance in dealing with vermin and noxious weeds, only to be told by the staff of the department, "We are sorry but we do not have any manpower or money and so we cannot do anything about it". Then one comes into Parliament and National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1667 listens to a series of speakers debating Bills proclaiming national parks but who do not address the problems of how the land is to be managed and how the managers are to be given the tools they need. The Victorian National Parks Association under the heading, "Why does the National Parks (Amendment) Bill deserve the support of Parliament?" says that the Bill gives wilderness parks legislative recognition and protection and it provides for adequate management requirements. I wonder where the management will come from? The National Parks Association does a great deal of work with the Minister, the department and with the members of the government to ensure that the funding for the management of these areas is adequate to match the hype which the Labor Party and many of its associated organisations shout when they run around Melbourne and Victoria. The answer is: "No". The Minister does not have and has not yet been able to get the resources to manage these areas. The association said that the passage of the Bill will prohibit exploration and mining in national and State parks and wilderness areas thus maintaining the integrity of our park system. I find it difficult to consider the wiping out of exploration practical because, as the honourable member for Polwarth mentioned earlier, it is important to know exactly what is locked up in the land. The next point that the association referred to was the creation of the five new parks. One would believe a whole range of mountains and hillsides with their trees and forests did not exist before the proposed legislation. It is not true; they were there, but now they have a different name. The association said that the new parks are LCC recommendations and that they will assist the consolidation ofpark areas in proximity to population centres and protect the major ecosystems of the State. I wonder whether that is true? The management of public land is the way to protect the ecosystems of the State. The designation and changing of names has little to do with that; if there is not proper management there is no way that goal can be achieved. It is the intention of all honourable members that public land should be managed in such a way that no matter what it is called-wilderness, national park and so forth-the ecosystem will be protected. Some time ago, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill passed through Parliament and that gave Parliament the power to control that area. The association believes the Bill deserves support because it recognises the important role of State parks in protecting major ecosystems. It says that three-year permits in parks will give far greater security for commercial operators for forward planning. The management of those lands is something that will protect those areas. The existing legislation does not have to be changed to do that if the government is keen to ensure that the management of our public land is adequate. That it is also "adequately funded' is thejoke. It is laughable to say that the government is creating this wonderful wilderness area of national park; all it has done is to change its name. The government has not had a change of heart about the management of these lands. The National Party will be interested to see what the Budget contains for the management of these public lands. The lockup syndrome is accepted by the government as an important political ploy. The government should examine the matter and act responsibly to ensure that the management of public lands is on the agenda. Perhaps if the political agenda contained the management and operation of public lands rather than their classification then the conservation debate might get somewhere. I do not know how one can get that message through. It is obvious to me that the conservation organisation is more interested in creating classifications than it is in land management. It must be so if it is to support the 1668 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill government because the government will not show the slightest interest in providing resources for the management of this land. It is an important aspect of the operation of government. If it is to make such a song and dance about the classification of public lands and it then changes the lands designation, the ~overnment has a responsibility to ensure the lands are properly managed. If that IS not done soon the wrath of the Victorian people will eventually descend upon the government as the debate on conservation ranges from classification through to mana~ement. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East hl,shlights how absurd is the proposed legislation and the concept of wilderness as a pnstine-type ecology or topography of land that will be declared as wilderness area in the future. If the government were to accept the amendment so that the wilderness area fulfilled the requirements of the amendment it would find that the wording of the amendment is probably closer to the meaning of wilderness than is anything else. The amendment states: That all the words after "That" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that any declaration by Act of Parliament of land as a wilderness park is subject to the principle that it be an area of more than 20 000 hectares, free of non­ indigenous flora and non-indigenous fauna, and which has been continuously managed in accordance with traditional techniques so as to retain the characteristics of Australian landscapes prior to European settlement." . The Bill is a nonsense. The government is playing with words and creating a political ploy that gives it a warm inner glow. The government is trying to convince the people that because it is changing the classifications of land and creating new classifications it is doing something worthwhile for conservation. The government has gone one step too far with this Bill. Had the Bill been included as part of the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill that was debated in this House last week, it might have been acceptable. It is ridiculous that the House is faced with this debate today because the government cannot back up the provisions of the Bill. No management provisions have been made and no additional employees have been provided for. I am sure that will be proved when the Budget is brought down in a few months time. I conclude my remarks by congratulating the honourable member for Gippsland East on his contribution to the debate and on the reasoned amendment he moved. Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-I join the debate to raise a number of issues and to put into context some of the matters that have already been discussed today. In the debate on the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill last week and again in the debate on this Bill today, the question of management has been raised by virtually every speaker. Management is of concern to a large number of people who have knowledge of the areas of the State affected by these Bills. Wilderness is a requirement for some people. Many people in the community seek and need the confines of a wilderness to come to terms with themselves. The demand is there and we must recognise it. In considering the definition of wilderness by the Land Conservation Council one must take into account a study done by Kathy Preece and Rob Lesslie in A Survey of Wilderness Qualities in Victoria. Their report went to the Ministry of Planning and Environment in Victoria and the Australian Heritage Commission. The survey used as indicators for a definition of wilderness the following four points: Remoteness from Settlement-remoteness from settled (cleared) land or, within natural areas, points of permanent occupation; National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1669

Remoteness from Access-remoteness from constructed vehicle access routes; Aesthetic Naturalness-the degree to which the landscape is free from the presence of the permanent structures of modem technological society; Biophysical Naturalness-the degree to which the natural environment is free of biophysical disturbance caused by the influences of modem technological society. In an attempt to define the areas that might be considered to be wilderness areas the following terms were used: To confine the survey to a manageable size, natural areas of at least 10 000 hectares without two wheel­ drive roads were surveyed. A grid of cells measuring approximately one kilometre by one kilometre was employed as the basis upon which to automatically make indicator measurements, carry out the analysis and present results. Maps of the results for the four indicators and total wilderness quality assessments are provided for each of the thirteen survey units which cover the study area. A Statewide summary of total wilderness quality is also presented. A study was made of the State areas that might be suitable as wilderness areas by using those four criteria. Clearly only a limited number of areas in the State could be considered to be of wilderness quality if the four criteria were to be applied. The map included in the report identified two major areas in the Mallee and two major areas in the eastern part of the State. I should have thought that with the two wilderness areas already declared the prospect of finding any further wilderness areas was fairly limited. For the reason mentioned by the honourable member for Berwick, I would want to see each of those wilderness areas declared through a le~slative process that really ensures that what was perceived by the study to be the Wilderness quality was in fact achieved. One of the study areas was called the Ta1langatta study area. It is in the area north of the town of Benambra. It takes in the Dartmouth dam and follows as its northern boundary the River Murray. During debate on the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill the question of Davies Plain was raised. Davies Plain is close to the New South Wales border and close to the Kosciusko National Park. Reference was made to the Davies Plain area in the Tallangatta survey: The only major area of moderate to high wilderness quality in the Tallangatta survey unit comprises the upper Buckwong Creek and the western fall into the Murray River upstream of Tom Groggin. A smaller area of moderate to high total wilderness quality around the Cobberas is separated by a band of lower wilderness quality near Limestone Creek. Biophysical Naturalness values (and therefore total values) in both areas are reduced by the continuation of cattle grazinJ. During debate on the National Parks (Alpine National Park) Bill the issue of timber resources in the Davies Plain area was raised. It would appear that the decision to keep the timber resource out of the once-only logging area was really based on a desire by the New South Wales government for a buffer zone in Victoria adjacent to the Kosciusko National Park. That is a precedent this Parliament should give some consideration to. The study, on which I understand the government places some importance, says that allowing the Davies Plain area to be a buffer zone does not meet the wilderness requirements originally intended for that area. Therefore, a review of the appropriate use for the Davies Plain area is needed. We should not be coerced into having our land use program determined by the New South Wales government. The Warburton survey unit, which includes the Avon Wilderness as we know it, warrants some critical examination. In 1983 the Land Conservation Council recommendation was that hunting of deer with bows should be permitted. If the government is prepared to accept the recommendation of the LCC in respect of the Avon Wilderness, it should be consistent and accept the LCC recommendations on the uses to be allowed in that area as well. 1670 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

In clause 6 under the heading "Prohibition on development and other activities", proposed section 17c (cl) states: there is no use of any non-indigenous animal; I do not know what "use" means as it is not defined. If "use" means that one cannot ride a horse because it is a non-indigenous animal, that is one definition of the word "use". If "use" refers to bringing in a scent-trailing hound for deer hunting, that is another definition. If someone kills a non-indigenous animal and uses the meat, that is another definition of "use". The 1983 LCC recommendation on deer hunting is not being met. At some stage almost all of the Alpine National Park area has been used for deer hunting, either by stalking or by using scent-trailing dogs. Although that activity is marginally commercial and so offends the philosophy of some people, it is enjoyed by a number of adherents. I have no special axe to grind in respect of deer hunting; I do not think I have ever eaten venison. It is a legitimate activity, just as driving four-wheel drive vehicles is a legitimate use of public land. Mr Maclellan-But not of wilderness. Mr COLEMAN-No, not of wilderness. The exclusions under the prohibition make it clear that deer hunting in wilderness areas will not be an accepted use. The Minister should address the issue because the Avon Wilderness was created on the basis of the acceptance of the 1983 LeC recommendations. It was understood that the recommendations permitted a continuing use in the area, but the proposed legislation precludes that use. The June 1987 publication, A Survey of Wilderness Quality in Victoria is valuable in thal it defined the potential wilderness areas in the State more clearly than did the Land Conservation Council. It contains a map which cannot be reproduced in Hansard. The map shows through shading that only a limited number of areas of the State could be claimed to be wilderness, and so designating the wilderness areas will be of some benefit. The final comment in the report is: In sunmary, the survey shows that the few large areas of very high wilderness quality in Victoria are in the north-western "deserts". In the eastern part of the State, where the access network is more dense, settlement more extensive and the intensive use of natural land for production purposes more widespread, nodes of high wilderness quality are generally small and scattered. However, in many cases they are surrour.ded by zones of lesser wilderness quality which nevertheless have high values for several wilderness indicators. As the planning and management of Victoria's natural areas becomes more complex, and concern over the deterioration of wilderness quality in the State grows, the detailed resource information provided by this survey methodology will become increasingly useful. The survey approach and results have a major role to ;>lay in the development of appropriate wilderness protection policy and management strategies to presene and enhance the special qualities of Victoria's remote and natural lands. The comment is valuable. The report highlights the fact that wilderness areas must be at least 10 000 hectares in size and that very few areas in Victoria meet that requirement. Parliament faces a dilemma on the question of mining exploration. The Crown is the owner of minerals in Victoria and those minerals are accessed by a mining right process. If the Crown owns the minerals, access to Crown land must be provided to mining companies. It may not be necessary to have a clause which grants a carte blanche for mining rights but as part of its assessment process the government should provide an opportunity for exploration to continue on Crown land. After all, the land belo~s to the people. If in the process the government takes a veto position on its land, it will find it difficult to maintain that private landowners should not have the same right of veto available to them. Although the matter has been considered, it National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1671

needs to be discussed further. Notwithstanding that the terms of reference of the mining review exclude national parks, it would have been wise not to have proceeded with the clauses relating to mining until the mining review had been received. It seems that the government wants to lock out that option. The government will have to deal with the question of the availability of the right of veto for private landowners. If the government proceeds up the track of assuming a veto which the private landowners do not have, the debate will be drawn away from the original intention of the mining review. As I said, management has been commented on throughout this debate. I remind honourable members that the people who live in these areas have a special understanding of what is required and what is a fair thing. I quote an example of how the operations of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands are brought into disrepute. Five employees of the department were sent in a rental deluxe land cruiser wagon to clear fallen limbs from a fire access track. Because the carrying of chain saws and tools was not allowed in that vehicle, they were told to drive 45 kilometres to the point where they were to start work and to wait for another vehicle to bring the equipment. I should have thought that five employees in a land cruiser wagon would have been able to bring the equipment with them, but they were not able to. After waiting all day, no-one came, so they went home. Presumably the next day the same thing happened; this time the second vehicle turned up and it contained the chainsaw. That is the sort of comment which brings management into disrepute. It is little wonder that honourable members have made numerous comments in this debate about management. Another criticism conveyed to me was that priorities have to change. Instead of sending a works team of six men to a small flat in the Alps with two four-wheel drive vehicles and three Whipper Snippers to trim the grass around some of the signs-in those areas, that is perceived to be a waste of resources-action must be taken to control noxious weeds. Hundreds of thousands of hectares should be treated in much the same way as the Whipper Snippers have been used to trim the grass around signs. That epitomises what has been said during the debate. We have all come to terms with the fact that public land is for the use of the public. Management plans in those areas have to reflect people's aspirations and their perceived use. Wilderness areas are required, and people seek that sort of environment. Wilderness is identified clearly in the report, and a number of areas have been delineated where it is possible for the public and proper management techniques to coexist. With the greater public use of these areas, management plans must reflect that greater usage. We should be pressing on with the creation of national parks. After all, they are our heritage and they should be passed on to future generations. It would be a dereliction of duty if we did not ensure that what we have today is not at least maintained and improved for future generations. At the very least, we must ensure that those who have the opportunity of using the parks are able to use them and that proper management and planning is put in place. For that reason, people must be adaptable; they must ensure that proper management techniques are put in place. The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Vaughan)-Order! When the honourable member for Swan Hill concluded his remarks, the honourable member for Syndal and the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands rose to their feet at the same time. I should have called the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands first to enable her to speak to the reasoned amendment. I apologise to the Minister. She may speak to the reason sed amendment but not to the second-reading motion. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-It is my intention to speak against the reasoned amendment, not to close the debate. The reasoned 1672 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill amendment can be broken up into various statements that have been made by the honourable member for Gippsland East. One is that the wilderness park be subject to the principle that it be an area of more than 20 000 hectares. That is one principle that would have to be satisfied. The second principle would be that wilderness be free of non-indigenous flora; and the third principle, non-indigenous fauna; and the fourth principle that the land be continuously managed in accordance with traditional techniques. They are four reasons why the government could not have wilderness anywhere in Victoria. It is recognised that over the past 150 years of white settlement in Victoria we have such places that would be deemed to be wilderness under any criteria, and I shall elaborate shortly about the definitions surrounding wilderness that have been adopted by a range of different bodies and organisations. Wilderness is becoming scarce in today's ever increasingly urbanised and development-oriented world, including Victoria. We have a rapidly increasing population in Victoria and an increasingly industrialised and developed society. It has meant that few areas have been left untouched in some way or other by white man's development. Many changes have taken place over the 150 years, such as large-scale clearing for agriculture. That has taken place for cogent and sensible economic reasons to ensure that we have food and an economy that is able to thrive in Victoria. Large-scale clearing has stopped for good reasons, but it has meant that in the past those areas would not have been cleared to the extent that they have if management plans had been put in place. We have urbanisation, minin~ activities, timber harvesting, grazing by introduced animals, the introduction of exotIC plants and animals, as well as road and vehicular track construction, which put pressure on the areas of public land in Victoria which people wish to enjoy in various recreational forms. That means there are fewer relatively untouched areas left by European settlement. Approximately 2 per cent of Victoria is deemed to be wilderness, and if the four princIples that have been outlined in the reasoned amendment were to be adopted­ or anyone individually-it would be hard to proclaim wilderness areas. Mr Evans interjected. Mrs SETCHES-The honourable member for Gippsland East interjects. The honourable member for Swan Hill pointed out earlier that the National Party would not have wilderness areas where there was one rabbit or some blackberries on land that had been managed in what is deemed to be traditional techniques, such as mining, fire use or a range of other techniques that have been developed in Victoria by white Europeans over the past 150 years. The four principles that have been stated clearly in the reasoned amendment would, in effect, mean the end of wilderness in Victoria. A number of honourable members debated the question of the definition of wilderness. It is important to take the definition of wilderness into account because of the definition implied by the honourable member for Gippsland East in his reasoned amendment. I shall enumerate some definitions and meanings of wilderness. I have an Oxford English Dictionary definition. The honourable member for Doncaster actually could put a date on his Oxford English Dictionary definition but the one I have states: A wild or uncultivated region or tract ofland, uninhabited or inhabited only by wild animals; a tract of solitude and savageness. That also describes the area of thinking of some people on the opposite side of the House. I refer to a definition of wilderness by the Australian Conservation Foundation, 1975: A large tract of primitive country with its land and waters and its native plant and animal communities substantially. unmodified by humans and their works. Large size and spaciousness are the essential characteristics of wilderness. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1673

The implied definition contained in the motion moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East would cancel out both those definitions. I refer to the definition of wilderness adopted by the Institute of Foresters of Australia in 1979. Foresters are a group of people who manage certain areas. Their definition states: An area of wilderness is a large tract of primitive country with its land and waters and its natural plant and animal communities ideally unmodified by humans and their works. This tract must be large enough to survive as wilderness, and ideally must be extensive enough to require more than one day's walk to traverse. That definition would also be negated by the honourable member for Gippsland East. The United States Wilderness Act 1964, which was mentioned by an honourable member opposite and also in the terrific speech given by the honourable member for Greensborough, states: A wilderness in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognised as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain. We go now to the New Zealand National Parks Authority which has also adopted a definition of wilderness: A wilderness is an area of land of primeval character which is protected and managed so as to perpetuate its natural condition and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with any imprint of man's interference substantially unnoticeable; and is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition and to give opportunities for solitude and for primitive and unconfined types of recreation. I then refer to the Australian Conference of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) 1985 which would have representatives from the three parties as nature conservation Ministers. It states: 'Wilderness area' is taken to mean a large natural area designated as 'wilderness area' under legislation and managed to maintain or restore its qualities of remoteness from roads and facilities, and lack of evidence of alteration by people. We then go the the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which defines wilderness as an area: In a state where its wilderness or primitive appearance is not impaired by any form of development, and in which the continued existence of indigenous animal and plant species is assured. . I now quote the New South Wales Wilderness Working Group, 1986: Wilderness area means a large tract ofland with native plant and animal communities, not substantially modified by humans and their works, of sufficient area to make practicable its preservation and appropriate use in an unimpaired condition, and giving opportunities for solitude and recreation. Then there is the Environment and Land Use Act (British Columbia) which states: A roadless tract of land in which natural systems are allowed to proceed without alienation and which is suitable for extensive primitive recreational use. I refer to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1974. Bob Brown, in 1980 states: Wilderness is a large tract of entirely natural country. It is a place where one stands with the senses entirely steeped in nature and one feels free of the effects of modern technology. The honourable member for Gippsland East has often made a statement that wilderness is a state of mind rather than a state of country. It appears that Bob Brown has actually married both of those ideas, a state of mind and also a place. I also refer to the New South Wales Wilderness Act 1987 and there is a general feeling among groups that in 1674 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill fact that particular definition could be adopted in Victoria but it would perhaps be premature to adopt any of these. Mr Maclellan -Which one do you want? Choose one. Mrs SETCHES-I suppose I could really lean towards Bob Brown's view, which might encompass the view of the honourable member for Gippsland East, that it is not only a place but also a state of mind. The Land Conservation Council is undertaking its investigations into wilderness in Victoria and we should wait to hear what its definition of wilderness is. I suppose if I had a personal view I might lean to the New South Wales definition but we will perhaps talk about that while the Bill is between here and another place. I am trying to point out that the reasoned amendment is in fact exclusive. I am spending a lot of time thinking about those four areas that have been defined in the implied definition of the National Party. That definition would certainly be unacceptable to this side of the House. The sitting was suspended at 6.28 p.m. until 8.3 p.m. Dr WELLS (Dromana)-The purposes of the National Parks (Amendment) Bill are: to make provision for wilderness parks and State parks; to make provision for the prohibition of new mining activities in national parks, State parks, and wilderness parks; to create new parks and make alterations to existing parks; and to make other amendments to the National Parks Act 1975 and to amend certain other Acts. This Bill does contain a number of important principles and developments which I will come to as I proceed. Let me say, Sir, it does disappoint me to find a theme running throughout conservation debates in this Parliament, suggesting that we are hurrying too quickly in attempting to address some of our errors of the past. I think in terms of management of our natural world and I think just to add one more very small note of perspective to the debate, let me remind honourable members of world predictions about what will happen to arable soils on planet earth in the next few years. Each year currently we lose 11 million hectares of arable land, lost due to destruction and to urbanisation. By 2000 AD that could amount to 275 million hectares or 18 per cent of our arable land. Twenty-five years later, by 2025, that amount could be another 18 per cent, and that does not include the 7 million hectares of grasslands lost each year through desertification. Each year it is estimated that Europe, the area with least erosion in the world, and the United States of America each lose approximately 1 billion tonnes of soil, and Australia probably loses a similar amount. So I su~est we are likely to make far greater errors by not doing things than by attempting, In what is a reasonably feasible way, to claw our way forward and clawback some of the mistakes of the past and try to Introduce a new language to the management of the planet, which we possess for this very short period. It is against that background that I think we should see these sorts of Bills coming before this Parliament. Having said that, let me go on to say that this Bill, more than most in quite a few Bills now, but not uniquely alone, disappoints and frustrates me because it appears to be, yet again, a grab bag of ideas put together with no perceptional framework to it, which means there is no core structure, no basis there on which, when we get down to the really hard work that follows, which is the management that flows from a Bill such as this, we do not have the core structure that would be necessary to carry us through the difficulties that lie ahead. I want to come to that as I proceed. Let me take the first section of the Bill which refers to wilderness, and note that we have at this time only two-and they are very National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1675 large-wilderness areas in Victoria-Avon and Big Desert-and say that although this Bill would appear to be an important development in making it possible to manage better and to protect these areas better in the future, it is not the momentous Bill that some may suggest it is. That work was done in large part when the original wilderness areas were established. The Bill, as I have said, fails to provide a conceptual framework for this work. In fact, it provides only a precedence approach to the matter. I really fail to understand the urgency of rushing this Bill through this House at this time when we have the Land Conservation Council embarked upon a careful, long analysis of this matter of wilderness. It has been my distinct privilege to live in other countries, as I would expect a number of honourable members of this House have done, and to have seen the way other democratic Parliaments handle their legislation and in those cases in a country such as Switzerland, they do not rush their legislation through and do not, therefore, end up making the many mistakes we make, and they do not have to go back as we do over the ground when it is more difficult to correct something rather than to have got it right in the beginning. Classically, my comments may be illustrated by the fact that, of all things, this Bill does not contain even a definition of wilderness. I find that absolutely inexplicable. There can be, Sir, no conceptual framework to an approach to wilderness unless there is a definition of what we are talking about, and although the Minister responsible attempted, I believe, at the last minute before dinner to retrieve the situation, in fact she did not really achieve a great deal. She offered us-was it 10 or 15 or 20- definitions of wilderness but did not, as the Minister responsible, offer us-she was not prepared to offer us-a definition by which the Parliament might proceed. Instead, she said simply, "If necessary, my personal wish would be so and so". There are many definitions, but I suggest that the intellectual soft-headedness of the government's preparation on this Bill may be seen-and I intend to quote it-in the long discourse given under "Objects" on clause 5 which says: In section 4 of the Principal Act, after paragraph (a) insert "to make provision in respect of wilderness parks- (i) for the protection, enhancement and management of those parks as wilderness so as to maximise the extent to which those parks are undisturbed by the influence of European settlement of Australia; and (ii) for the protection, preservation and evolution of the natural environment including indigenous flora and fauna and of features of ecological, geological, scenic, archaeological and other scientific significance; and (iii) for the use and enjoyment of those parks by the public for inspiration, solitude and appropriate self-reliant recreation; and (iv) for the study of ecology, geology, botany, zoology, archeology and other sciences relating to the new environment in those parks;". That can be nothing more than a statement of someone who says, "I do not know what should be in there; I am not game to leave anything out. I shall include the whole panoply of scientfic disciplines that might have something to do with the subject of wilderness". That is an unacceptable approach when we are asked to embark upon what is in recent times a new development in the Parliament of enormous significance for mankind and the planet earth. Of the many definitions that the Minister quoted, I am pleased that she quoted the definition from the New South Wales Wilderness Act which narrows the subject down somewhat and offers something of value in it: wilderness is an area, together with its plant and animal communities, in a state which has not been substantially modified 1676 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill by man and his works, an area of sufficient size to make its maintenance in such a state feasible, and an area that is capable of providing opportunities for solitude and appropriate self-reliant recreation. I do not say that this is the definition that we necessarily should adopt. I do expect the government opposite to provide a definition we might consider, and that has not been done. I do not see why we should have to proceed at this time without the Land Conservation Council's offering before us for consideration, because we have in fact leant so heavily on their work in the past. If no-one else is doing the work for us-and no-one in Victoria is-at least we should have that information before proceeding. Why should we not wait for that? I cannot find any explicable reason. The lands are already under government control; they are already in wilderness parks. The changes we are making will lead in the long term, we are told, to better management; but there is nothing urgent about it. The job for the government and the Parliament is to develop conceptual and practical frameworks on which the community may go forward. It is not their job to do the manufacturing work in the community or other things like that. It is their job above all else-and they have unlimited resources so far as any democratic community goes-to do that work. It is their job above all else to sit back and obtain whatever information is necessary, wherever it needs to come from, and to put it together in the best possible way, producing a tested conceptual and practical framework on which we may then say, as the Parliament and government of Victoria to the people, that they believe that is the way to go forward. I am sick and tired of seeing so many things come before the Parliament in which we find we have to either go back and correct our errors or we meet some enormous costs in terms of waste or losses caused by not having thought our way through what we are about in the beginning. This government rushes in too many times on matters which are of such importance, and that is why I believe it is quite reasonable to say to the government opposite, "That is part of the reason why you then find it difficult to get the Opposition's support always in things which you propose". Certainly, the newer the concept you propose the more you need to prepare it carefully so that you can say to those who must be your best and most vigorous critics-the opposition parties-"Here is the practical support for what we are saying should be done". There are many illustrations in which the government has failed in the way I have just suggested. If one looks at the conservation issues and national parks one finds that this is so. The government has not put its physical resources where its mouth has been, and in many cases where the parks are in a mess the government does not listen to the Opposition when valid criticism is made of these developments. If one looks at pollution, take the case of the government's proposal to establish a nuclear dump right next to the lake at Dutson Downs, right on the edge of the lake-as I saw for myself­ some 50 feet from the lake. Is that a place to put nuclear residues which may survive for thousands of years? Of course it is not. If one looks at science and technology it is clear that the government looked around the community, as any other government in Australia could have done, and picked up things that are going on and put them together in a grab bag of ideas and said, "This is the government's approach to science and technology in the years ahead". There it stops. It got, deservedly, enormous publicity for its efforts, but little has proceeded since that time. There was, for so much of it, not a conceptual framework there. There are things continuing which hopefully will bear good fruit in the future. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1677

A lot more should have been achieved in this area in seven years of government. If one looks at education, the Victorian certificate of education is in an utter mess because of a lack of a coherent and conceptual framework for handling what are good ideas at their heart. In commerce, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation is another illustration of the same thing-an area that just goes rampant once the initial heyday of publicity is over and management control comes offwhat is basically a weak framework. Returning to some particular parts of the Bill, let me say that the reference to wilderness zones and the government's wish to have these areas created without them coming through the Parliament is to me quite unacceptable. I hope the government will rethink the issue and see that wilderness zones, as with wilderness parks, are created by an Act and the consideration of Parliament. The second major area of the Bill I wish to refer to is the upgrading of the State parks to exclude mining from them-to exclude only new mining from these parks. I believe we have heard lucid and pertinent comments on this from the honourable member for Polwarth, who talked about the need, with all the goodwill in the world, about conservation, to know what is in the areas under our physical control. If one takes a long-term view for hundreds of years or 1000 years down the track, there are some areas of our globe under our control which we may decide to protect forever and at any cost, no matter what, from mining. That need not apply to areas that are of huge extent. The very least thing is that in the real world we have to work and earn a dollar and pay our way to live, to at least know what the prospects are. I am not convinced that the government has a conceptual approach and strategy on which to say, "We will keep locking up areas and nothing more will be done with them". There may be areas of Victoria where one could take the cap off, take $10 billion worth of minerals out and put the cap back on and within the next 50 years remake the area quite adequately. I remember visiting the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, which is 21 000 square kilometres in size. To this day I remain convinced that there are areas of that park which I would be prepared to mine under appropriate conditions. I acknowledge that in the past we have made grave mistakes in the State by mining and not correcting afterwards, despite the claims of the mining industry. The error in those cases has been that we have not cleared up properly and revegetated properly as we should have done. Before the government and others rush to say that I am negating my consistent stand over many years on conservation, let me say that the government has acknowledged that it will honour all current mining contracts. I believe the government should really address itself to the question of mining in a careful way and so decide what is the absolute minimum that we can acknowledge in this day and under our control tolerate in terms of the balance between economic development and the preservation of priceless natural things on a timeless basis. This brings me again to the headlong rush approach of the government, which has a major review of mining under way; and it is rushing Acts through the Parliament that relate to the subject. Why does it not wait for six or even twelve months until it has got the appropriate information to do the job properly? The third section of the Bill relates to parks-to new parks. They are small. I think they are non-controversial; and if there is a rationale for their development I am delighted to support them. It seems that there are a number of reasons why land might be put into parks and one might quickly list them as, firstly, the need to extend existing parks; secondly, the availability of government land which is not needed for other things; or, thirdly, as essential illustrations of particular natural phenomena not yet included in the State 1678 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill collection. Finally, perhaps just unthinking inclusion because someone thought what they do is they put it there as good as anywhere else. The conceptual framework for the creation of parks should be based on considerations such as, firstly, the need for present and future use; secondly, the fact that there is no other better use for the land than putting it there; thirdly, that it is an essential illustration of a particular natural phenomenon in terms of land or plants or animal communities in this respect: fifthly, that it is filling in the fine print of nature across the State of Victoria, and we have not heard from the government in the Bill, nor in the second-reading speech of the Minister, just why these inclusions are being made. This is usually the case. We are getting something in a Bill with no real explanation of it and I believe that is not worthy enough of the cause which we seek to serve in this regard. The current five parks, as I say, are small involvements in upgrading areas to a higher status, to higher management, and to higher use and I emphasise that description of higher management. There is no question that running throughout all the debates in this Parliament-in this House ofParliament-on these Bills has been the continuing valid and indestructible criticism of the government's performance, that it has not, to put it crudely, put its money where its mouth is. I fail to understand why because if one looks at the State Budget of Victoria, the total Budget involves a very small sum of money for conservation and environmental purposes and preservation-if one likes-of the National Estate of Victoria. Sir, if one then takes the absolutist argument and says that, "We just could not afford it", that is nonsense in the extreme because there is so much money being wasted in Victoria in so many other and very big areas that money used efficiently in this area will, I believe, show a greater return on investment than almost anyone other than perhaps several area~ in the State Budget. If one looks back, Mr Acting Speaker, over the previous few years one will find that the Victorian Bud$et increase for conservation and environmental purposes has just kept parallel with lnflation. Yet, in those years that I have been here, the amount of land coming under this higher classification has increased by at least 50 per cent. Now, in the last year, Sir, I acknowledge the government increased the Budget by 22 per cent, but that certainly does not balance the degree to which we fell behind in the previous years. The comments of speaker after speaker in this House, which I do not intend to repeat, about the lack of even petrol to run vehicles, the lack of weed control and the feral animals in parks is absolutely true. From every electorate in Victoria I believe one could find illustrations to this precise criticism and really it is time the government seriously took things to heart or else we found a way of demonstrating to the world outside that the government is, indeed, in practice, hypocritical in that it does not put its money where its mouth is, but it is as someone said earlier, more interested in grabbing the headline and leaving it at that. I do not think that is totally fair comment because I think it has come up with a number of good ideas in conservation and environmental subjects, but it certainly has fallen far short of the minimal practical program, in my view, to make things go as is necessary at this relatively late time of high technology as we come to the end of the twentieth century. I want to turn briefly in the last few minutes to an area near and dear to my heart right at home in my electorate, Point Nepean National Park, and make some comments upon that. The Bill provides for the addition to Point Nepean National Park of an area behind Gunnamatta Beach, some of Greens Bush-and I compliment the National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1679 government on its willingness to help finally after an enormous publicity program by the public to include Greens Bush in Point Nepean National Park, and to add a defence road to the park. The road is coming from the Federal government as that area of the park did in the Commonwealth area right at the tip of the peninsula in the previous several years and, would you believe Sir, consistent with what happened earlier the Victorian government had to buy that road from the Commonwealth government and then the Commonwealth government insisted upon an easement back over the area to ensure that they had access to the area in the future. I have never heard anything of more utter nonsense than that. It brin~s me to the point that I think Point Nepean park makes a matter of great historic lmportance. We should, as a nation, get rid of this nonsense that when the people's land passes from administrative control of the Commonwealth government to a State government, or vice versa, that the recipient government has to pay for the land. It has to pay for it. That is an utter nonsense, and that is well illustrated by what happened in Point Nepean where the Federal government forced, I think it is fair to say, the Victorian government to go along with it. I do not know the de$fee of enthusiasm the Victorian government had for the process, although the then Mlnister for Conservation, Forests and Lands did say to me at one point, "Do what you can because we are beaten; the Commonwealth government has just ridden right over the top of us". That was when the people launched their program which eventually was successful at the time of the Federal election when Prime Minister Hawke thought he might lose two Lower House seats, and in the last hour having them back off-they were proposing to do a $10 million subdivision for housing on the priceless cliff top land at the entrance to Point Nepean park. Yet, within months, in the bicentennial year, the Prime Minister and the Premier and whoever else could get in on the act was calling this the Victorian jewel in the bicentennial year. It was not rescued by the governments at all, but indeed by people, by people driven action. In that case, to have subdivided that land to pay the Commonwealth government would have been a disgrace. I hope Parliaments will, in my lifetime, change that and see that a book entry is done between governmerits; that should ever the land be sold to private enterprise, one could trace it back and split the spoils if one wished. Let us have no more nonsense of this business of people paying for their own land and, in the process when the Victorian government says, "We cannot afford to pay for it," agreeing to subdivide it to satisfy a greedy Federal government. That park was threatened with significant destruction because of that process. The park itself is still associated with two areas of land owned by the Commonwealth government. The first is a small area on the Port Phillip Bay seaside which houses the Army School of Health. That is something we should live with and, to a degree, because of the control over the area they exercise, welcome. There is a much bigger area that illustrates again the real lack of commitment of the Federal and Victorian governments, in my view, to conservation and national parks, an area several hundred hectares which has had a fence built around it which contains unexploded shells from the second world war days and nearby the Commonwealth government has also three firing ranges for practice and I believe those firing ranges are quite inappropriate to the area and the Commonwealth government land which is enclosed with a fence so people cannot get in and kill themselves by treading on a shell, sits there with the Commonwealth government saying it cannot afford to pick up the shells. 1680 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

They have done that in Western Australia. What have we got explosive experts for? What have we got Army engineers for? What are we paying them a salary week by week for if they cannot be brought down in peace time and given something quite useful to do rather than exercises to keep their hands in artificially? Why are those shells not picked up? I have said to members of the government opposite previously, that I will not be responsible, as the local member, should the day come when a citizen is killed by climbing over the fence and treading on some shell, and shells have been found there over the past several years. The Victorian government should be saying to the Commonwealth government, "What you have done is not acceptable and we want it cleaned up". It can be cleaned up even if it involves taking down some of the vegetation that is there and even upsetting the wildlife for a relatively short while. I think, in fact, any of that destruction of vegetation would involve material that could be grown again reasonably easily. I do not think for a moment that the grand old moonah trees, M elaleuca lanceolata, would need to be destroyed in those areas. I think we could get that job done, and why should we not? The alternative is to let it sit there for 100 or 200 years and we may not be any better off if those shells remain; even if they do not, we will not know until we clean it up. It is the job of governments to know what they do in these situations because they are the ones who are responsible. There is a key issue in that park and it is the clean-up and the removal of those shells and there can be no alternative acceptable policy in that matter. I have said this to the government opposite time and again. I accept that in the first instance it is not under their primary control; it is Commonwealth land. It is my view that the Commonwealth government should get right out of the area, cede all the land to the Victorian government of.the day other than the Army School of Health-even in the long-term that should go, too, I believe, from what is a unique area in Victoria. The Point Nepean National Park also illustrates, unfortunately, again, what so many of us opposite have said here: that there is not sufficient money to run the park decently, and one can come with me and see in areas of that great park fences falling down and weeds growing and there are feral animals there and so forth. Mr Maclellan interjected. Dr WELLS-So there are those real inadequacies, and yet I remind the House that-a little reminiscent of perhaps the interjection just made then-that this total park has between 2·5 million and 3 million vistors to it, and there is some income from parking in a number of areas. So I believe the government is really hypocritical in what they are saying and what they are not doing to back it up. The final word upon it is really that I believe we might yet be looking at a situation in this Parliament-and I have been one so far counselling against it-where we might be pushed to the point, as opposition parties, eventually of saying to the government, "No, you cannot have your Bill for more national parks or more land for professed upgrading of management and status and use of the people's land in Victoria until you guarantee to provide the money in a reasonable projection to go with it". I would not wish to see that happen but there is sufficient real, material evidence out there in the real world that we are dragging badly behind, that the case becomes more and more difficult to say to critics, "No, we should go on and make more parks" when they say, "You are leaving a mess behind". The opposition parties might be pushed to that point, and I believe the government should take seriously that possibility. We have grown very frustrated and impatient over their muddle-headed thinking when it comes to matching money with their mouth and ideas. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1681

Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe)-I should like to summarise, if I may, what has occurred during this session, as I believe a milestone has been created in the development of national parks in our State. What we are doing is finally complementing the early work started by former Premiers, including the Honourable Dick Hamer, who was conscious of the need for national parks in Victoria, about which I believe he raised people's awareness throughout the State. I believe we are taking the next step tonight: complementing the Bill that was passed earlier in the week. We have now decided there are many areas that ought not to have mining, which has been a very controversial issue over many years. However, from all the controversy that has occurred-and I believe the general public ought to know this-has resulted the general consensus of opinion among the political parties. However, I place on notice also the fact that where we may have gone wrong in the past-and we ought to be fully aware of this-is that we have believed this country is very lucky and it ought to build up its economy on mineral wealth. Of course, what we have decided over many years is to allow our manufacturing industries to deteriorate to such an extent that the Federal government is now saying that we have gone wrong in that area and it is doing its best to rejuvenate our manufacturing industries. However, we all said at the time that this country could live on the mining industry. That is one of the areas in which we went wrong. At the time we said that anybody had the right to come into those areas, dig them up, and destroy everything for the future and we thought we could come home on the back of the mining industry. Public opinion has now told us that that is not acceptable, so we are now getting ourselves into a financial position where we are questioning whether we can afford the luxury of saying to the mining industry, "You can proceed to a certain extent, but from there on you must stop". I support the direction that we ought not to have mining in our very precious areas, but if we intend to do that there has to be some alternative. It is no good the people of this State and the government of the day saying that we can just continue to bury our heads in the sand, without providing some replacement income for those industries. Whether or not we like it, we are in the big world today and we are competing with the big countries of the world. It is obvious that tonight we fully support the government in the direction it is taking, but I am saying that this sort of action cannot continue forever; it is not possible to tie up all the areas unless there is an alternative to enable the manufacturing industry to obtain replacement income in this State and country. It is easy to stand up in this place and compliment ourselves that tonight we have closed up all these valuable areas. It is wonderful to be able to say that, but in the long term we must acknowledge that in doing so industries such as manufacturing industries will have to accept the responsibility of increased productivity, that workers in those areas will have to have greater incentive and that they will have to be more hard working so that we can say to future generations, "Our parks have to stay as they are". I believe Victoria has a saleable item. The other comment I place on notice relates to the fact that we have talked about the servicing of our parks. I point out that the areas being designated in the Bill now before the House will cost the taxpayers of this State because there will be a need to service those areas through the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. That is something about which I believe the Minister and her departmental heads will have many headaches; they will have much difficulty in finding the money and government expenditure will be very much restricted. I believe they will have a hell of a headache in finding funds to service those areas. I dread to think of the problems they will have 1682 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill because this is a $fowth area-and my view on this has been consistent-ofgovernment expenditure, WhICh I strongly oppose. I point out to those people who have responsibility in this area that there will be a need to create the wealth so that it is possible for such areas to be kept and serviced. That is the challen$e that the Minister and her departmental officers will have to take up. This sort of actIon cannot be taken without someone having to make a sacrifice. I have been quite consistent in my view on this matter; I have supported the declaration of national parks all along. Honourable members interjecting. Mr HEFFERNAN-It is easy for people like those honourable members who interject to bury their heads in the sand and say, "It is a cost". Of course it is related to cost, and everyone should realise that. I know where the Opposition stands on this matter; it supports the concept, but its members do not bury their heads in the sand. All along, throughout the debate on this issue, everyone including the government has been talking about dollars and cents, dollars and cents. The proposal will cost Victoria a lot of money. I am willing to consider other areas in which costs can be cut because I believe it is important to this and future generations that the area be preserved for all time. The wilderness areas are tremendous. They are unique. They are the sorts of areas that can be cultivated and can be considered a saleable item in the tourist industry. Mr W. D. McGrath-Y ou are not allowed to cultivate a wilderness area. Mr HEFFERNAN-The wilderness areas are unique and Australia is extremely lucky to have such areas. Finally, I shall refer to the remarks made by the honourable member for Dromana about the Point Nepean National Park. I compliment the government on the strong stand and the steps it has taken and the negotiations it has had in an attempt to designate the area a national park. It is a most unique area, and close to the city, to which people have access. I have said before that national parks are magnificent, but most of them are a long way away. People have to take long drives from the metropolitan area to get to most of them. In the light of the philosophy that the Liberal Party has-that the population spread of urban development must stop because of the environmental cost-there is a need for parks that are close to the city. I put it to the government that the areas in and around the city that it has been selling off ought to be preserved. The Point Nepean National Park, which is mentioned in the Bill, is important to Victorians. The Army allocation in the national park area is a major blunder. The Federal government has a responsibility to remove the Army from the Point Nepean National Park. Despite negotiations between the Federal government, the State government and the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, the bureaucracy forced a compromise in allowing the Army to remain on that site. I request the government and the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands to continue negotiations and to pressure the Federal government to remove the Army base from the national park. The Point Nepean National Park belongs to the people of Victoria and Australia, not to the Army. I shall not rest until that is achieved. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-I shall make a few comments about the reasoned amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East. The Opposition carefully considered the reasoned amendment during the suspension of the sitting and National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1683 decided that it would not support it. I believe the honourable member for Gippsland East deserves an explanation why the Opposition has taken that view. I shall not refer to decimal point discussions on the merits or demerits of an area of 20 000 hectares as being the minimum. The matter of an area of land being a wilderness one minute and not the next because a rabbit runs across it or because of some non­ indigenous flora growing is not worth pursuing. The honourable member moved his reasoned amendment because he believes that a definition of "wilderness" should be more carefully examined, and I accept that. The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands suggested that this matter should be carefully considered by the government, the National Party and the Opposition in conjunction with, I hope, having access to departmental officers. The Opposition's view from the outset of the debate has been that it will not proceed without Parliamentary control of wilderness areas. The Opposition is flexible about declarations and the way parks are declared; it is not set in concrete as to the fine points. It is prepared to discuss these issues before the matter is determined. The Opposition will not vote for the reasoned amendment because it does not want people to boast that the Liberal Party wanted to have the Bill withdrawn. The Opposition wants the Bill to be amended, not withdrawn; it wants the Bill to pass in an amended form. The best means of expressing that is not to vote for the reasoned amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East but, by discussion and further examinatIon between now and its final consideration in another place, to find middle ground amendments to express middle ground conservation values with respect to a workable definition of "wilderness" for Victoria. I am initially attracted to the Minister's suggestion ofthe New South Wales definition. A clear case can be made out for Victoria and New South Wales to use the same definition of wilderness and to work towards a cooperative management of public lands and wilderness areas in the two States. I believe our approach to these questions should not be to continually ask why, but to occasionally approach it in the other way and ask why not. Why not have a cooperative effort? Why not have a common definition? That should be our starting point. If there are convincing reasons why Victoria should deviate and have its own definition, the Opposition will be prepared to examine the matter. As the Opposition anticipates that amendments will be proposed in the other place, it does not wish to pursue the Bill through the Committee stage at present. I understand the Minister may also agree not to proceed with her proposed amendments while discussions take place to ascertain what amendments may be proposed to the Bill in the other place. All honourable members could then look forward to having the Bill amended in the other place and being returned to this House for final consideration. The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr Evans to be omitted stand part of the motion (the Hon. Ken Coghill in the chair). Ayes 65 Noes 7 Majority against the amendment 58

AYES NOES Mr Andrianopoulos MrMcGrath MrBaker (Lowan) Mrs Barker MrMcGrath MrCain ( Warrnambool) MrClark MrMcNamara 1684 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

AYES NOES MrCole MrMaughan MrColeman Mr Ross-Edwards MrCooper MrCrabb Tellers Mr Cunningham MrJasper Mr Dollis Mr Steggall MrElder MrEmst MrFordham Mrs Garbutt MrGavin MrsGleeson MrHamilton Mr Harrowfield MrHeffeman MrsHill Mrs Hirsh Mr Honeywood MrJohn MrKennan MrKennedy MrKennett Ms Kimer MrLeigh MrLeighton Mr McCutcheon Mr Maclellan MrMicallef MrNorris MrPerton MrPescott MrPlowman MrPope MrsRay MrReynolds Mr Richardson MrRoper MrRowe MrSandon MrSeitz MrSercombe Mrs Setches MrSheehan (Ba/larat South) MrShell MrSimmonds MrSmith (Glen Waverley) MrSmith (Polwarth) MrSpyker Mr Stockdale MrTanner MrThomson MrTrezise DrVaughan MrsWade MrWalsh MrWeideman DrWells Mrs Wilson Tellers DrNapthine MrSheehan (Northcote) National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1685

Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-The second­ reading debate has continued for more than five hours, and it has been an informed debate. Some twelve speakers have made contributions, so the matter has been widely canvassed in the Chamber. I congratulate the Liberal Party for supporting the Bill and rejecting the reasoned amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East, who did not even believe it was necessary to be here tonight to vote in favour of his reasoned amendment. As many honourable members have said, the Bill is a significant step for conservation va!ues in Victoria ..~he Bill will basically be passed in its original form, and that is eVIdence of the pOSItIon that has been adopted in the community. People do not want mining. in national parks; ~hey ~an~ wilderness areas to be protected; and they want the natIonal p~rks .system In VIctona to be expanded so that ecologically significant areas across VIctona are preserved.

I owe the honourable member for Berwick an apology, and I want that on record. I received a rap over the knuckles for not inviting him to the opening of Lysterfield Park. I apologise; the honourable member was on the original list, but something happened and he was not invited. I shall ensure that that does not happen again. Perhaps he can attend the opening of the Bunyip State Park with me! I wish to lay to rest some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Berwick and others. Some honourable members asked about the difference between State and national parks. So far as conservation values are concerned, there is no appreciable difference between the two; the same commitment to preserving conservation values and ensuring correct management of the park applies to both. The only appreciable difference is the size of the park; generally State parks are smaller than national parks. The honourable member for Ivanhoe referred to the tangible benefits of national parks to the tourist industry. Visitors to our State and national parks do not wish to undertake recreational activities near mining activities. That was competently described by the honourable member for Greensborough. People would feel less attracted to VIsiting national parks if mining activities were taking place. There will be no mining in national parks. Increased tourism is one of the tangible benefits of the national parks system. Millions of people visit our parks and the Point Nepean National Park will be one of the more popular parks in Victoria. Tourists are also attracted to the Grampians and Wilsons Promontory and elsewhere in Australia tourists are attracted to the Kakadu National Park-which is an important part of the Northern Territory economy-and the Great Barrier Reef National Park. Some honourable members raised concerns about the proposed Bunyip State Park and asked whether the existing Bunyip sambar deer project will be altered. That project is located within the proposed Bunyip State Park, but this should not impede the intended proclamation of the park. Mr Mike Harrington has an annual grazing licence over 57 hectares which includes the enclosure, and this will continue in the park.

,!h~ Australian Deer Association was issued wita" a permit under section 6 of the WildlIfe Act to hol~ sambar deer on a temporary basis. That permit was renewed in June 1988 for a penod of three years. The association has been advised that the project and future use of the land will be addressed in the planning process for the proposed 1686 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill park. That is one of the matters that will be discussed while the Bill is between here and another place. I was concerned about the comments of the honourable member for Berwick regarding the grazing licences in the proposed Bunyip State Park, and I assure the honourable member that the comments of the officer to whom he referred are not an official view. The honourable member will be aware that the issue of grazing in national parks is resolved by the management plan, following full public comment, identification of environmental values and recommendations from the Land Conservation Council. Generally, grazing will continue at the discretion of the manager. This issue will be addressed in the management plan. I note that the honourable member was in agreement about the significance of the park, which contains 133 significant species and a large range of vegetation types characterising the central highlands. The honourable member for Berwick also referred to the hunting of rabbits and non-indigenous animals in wilderness areas. I foreshadow an amendment when the Bill is debated in the other Chamber that will ensure that rabbits and other non-indigenous species will be controlled in a satisfactory manner. The amendment will be one of a comprehensive set of amendments that will be developed. The honourable member also raised the issue of the contiguous Alpine National Park and asked whether wilderness will separate park areas in a way that will unnecessarily impede people moving through the park. The government has developed a continuous walking track from one end of the park to the other. It is not envisaged that it will be interrupted by wilderness. The idea of the walking track is that it should extend from one end of the park right through to the eastern end of Australia and should not be impeded by wilderness, so I see no problem with that. I shall examine the movement of four-wheel drive vehicles in that region to see whether a plan can be provided. Some honourable members raised the issue of mining and asked where the mining industry stands in Victoria and whether it has any future in this State. The Bill provides a clear statement to the mining industry. It is not encumbered by the uncertainty of section 40, which leaves approvals for applications for mining and exploration to the Minister's discretion. The Bill removes any uncertainties in that regard and I believe the mining industry should concentrate on other areas of the State. The government is committed through the review of the Mining Act to replace the antiquated and outmoded legislation with a simplified system. It is proposed under the review of that Act to allow public comment and to invite community responses to the Green Paper, so that when the new Act is finally drafted it will be clear which areas of land are open for exploration. Some areas of the State are not available for exploration or mining, but these are small areas such as reference areas, areas of historical significance and areas excepted under the Mining Act. This would be less than 1 per cent of Crown land. Honourable members representing rural electorates referred to cool bums and firefighting policies in wilderness areas. Fire protection planning for wilderness is covered by the regional fire protection planning process. This requires the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands regions to prepare and maintain a fire protection plan that is subject to the public consultation process, including consultation with the Country Fire Authority. This ensures local input and it is important that public consultation occur, because the management needs for firefighting and fuel reduction change across the State, depending on whether it is arid land, Mallee country or an alpine area. National Parks (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1687

Consistent with the departmental fire protection instructions, fire protection measures for wilderness are concentrated on adjacent public land forming a buffer for wilderness. However, fire protection planning alms to remove or reduce the possibility of wildfire burnin~ all or a major part of the wilderness. The emphasis is on low impact, minimal dIsturbance, but effective techniques offire protection, including fuel reduction bums and preparation for suppression activities, which include maintenance of fire tracks and helipads. All wildfires in wilderness areas will be suppressed. The actual tactics and techniques used will be those that the officer in charge considers effective and likely to have least effect on wilderness property. These will be outlined in the regional fire protection plan. Approximately 2 million hectares will be unavailable for mining in Victoria. However, existing mining contracts will be honoured. No hunting for deer is permitted in the wilderness. This is the same as the 1981 recommendations for alpine parks such as the Bo~on~ National Park and the Cobberas-Tingaringy National Park, in which deer huntIng IS not permitted. The Bill provides for the control of non-indigenous animals, which means the destruction of introduced animals such as deer. Hunting as a means of control can be allowed if needed for the responsible management of the wilderness and any other park. The honourable member for Portland referred to the Dergholm State Park and asked about the specific fire management of that area and whether the local advisory committee could be upgraded. The policy of local input in conjunction with the advisory committee that has been adopted is a good policy and the department will adopt that approach in the Dergholm State Park. I have already put a view about definitions. There is room for discussion between the parties on this matter while the Bill is between here and another place and I am willing to compile a complete list of comprehensive amendments, after consultation with the other parties, before the Bill is debated in the Upper House. The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time and, by leave, the House proceeded to the third reading. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: That the Bill be transmitted to the Legislative Council and their concurrence desired therein. The House divided on the motion (the Hon. Ken Coghill in the chair). Ayes 66 No~ 7 Majority for the motion 59 AYES NOES Mr Andrianopoulos MrMcGrath Mr Austin (Lowan) Mrs Barker MrMcGrath MrCain ( Warrnambool) MrClark MrMcNamara MrCole MrMaughan 1688 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 National Parks (Amendment) Bill

AYES NOES MrCooper Mr Ross-Edwards MrCrabb Mr Cunningham Tellers Mr Dollis MrJasper MrElder MrSteggall MrErnst MrFordham MrsGarbutt MrGavin MrsGleeson MrGude MrHamilton Mr Harrowfield MrHayward Mr Heffernan Mrs Hill Mrs Hirsh Mr Honeywood MrJohn MrKennan MrKennedy MrKennett Ms Kirner MrLeigh MrLeighton Mr McCutcheon Mr Maclellan MrMicallef MrNorris MrPerton MrPescott MrPlowman MrPope MrsRay MrReynolds Mr Richardson MrRoper MrRowe MrSandon Mr Seitz MrSercombe Mrs Setches MrSheehan (Ballarat South) MrShell MrSimmonds MrSmith (Glen Waverley) MrSmith (Polwarth) MrSpyker Mr Stockdale MrTanner MrThomson MrTrezise DrVaughan Mrs Wade MrWalsh MrWeideman DrWells Mrs Wilson Tellers DrNapthine MrSheehan (Northcote) ,-,,' Sale ofLand (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1689

PAIR MrMathews I MrEvans

SALE OF LAND (AMENDMENT) BILL This Bill was received from the Council and, on the motion ofMr McCUTCHEON (Attorney-General), was read a first time.

LEGAL PROFESSION PRACTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL Mr McCUTCHEON (Attorney-General)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. OBJECTS OF THE BILL The major objects of the Bill are: (I) To provide a speedy, cheap and efficient means of resolving disputes between solicitors and their clients or former clients; (2) To replace the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal with a Solicitors Board, which will have a less complex structure and will be more accountable to the public; (3) To give the Solicitors Board power to discipline solicitors for negligent or unprofessional work or conduct as well as for major misconduct; (4) To enable a complainant who has suffered loss as a result of a solicitor's negligence to receive compensation of up to $2500 without the need to bring an action in the courts; and (5) To ensure that all practitioners, whether practising as barristers, solicitors or both, are subject to the disciplinary procedures of either the Law Institute of Victoria or the Victonan Bar Council. BACKGROUND TO THE BILL The present statutory scheme of professional discipline for solicitors was introduced in 1978, following considerable public criticism of the legal profession, principally arising from the massive defalcations of the mid-1970s. A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which included lay members, was established to hear complaints of misconduct against solicitors. The Lay Observer's Office was established to monitor the adequacy of the investigation of complaints by the Law Institute and the adequacy of the tribunal's processes. In his final report as Lay Observer-the report for 1985-Mr Frank Eyre reviewed the operation of the new system since its introduction. He made a number ofcriticisms, including: " ~ that the definition of "misconduct" was too narrow, and that as a result many reasonable grievances about solicitors' incompetence went unresolved; that the tribunal lacked power to award compensation to complainants for financial loss incurred as a result of a solicitor's negligence and, as a result, complainants were forced to take common-law actions before the ordinary courts; and that the system of handling complaints was too complex and too slow. 1690 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Legal Profession Practice Bill

A working party was convened, comprising an officer of my department, the new Lay Observer and two representatives of the Law Institute. The Bill is based on the general principles developed by the working party, and has been endorsed by the Law Institute. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE BILL Standards breach The Bill creates a lower level of disciplinary offence known as "standards breach". Standards breach means conduct by a solicitor in a professional capacity which would be regarded by a solicitor in good standing as unacceptable or unprofessional behaviour, and includes conduct unbecoming a solicitor, unprofessional conduct and contravention of the Legal Profession Practice Act or its regulations or rules without reasonable excuse. The Law Institute has agreed to use its rule-making power under the Act to promulgate codes of conduct in relation to specific matters-for example, advising clients concerning the availability of legal aid. Breach of a code of conduct will constitute a standards breach. The creation of the new disciplinary offence will permit the resolution of complaints of negligent and unprofessional work not sufficiently serious to fall within the definition of "misconduct". This will provide a satisfactory outcome for complainants with legitimate grievances and encourage solicitors to maintain proper professional standards at all times. A solicitor who demonstrates a serious and continued disregard for proper professional behaviour by committing repeated standards breaches will be guilty of misconduct, and will be liable to more severe sanctions. The Registrar A new official known as the Registrar is to be appointed by the institute. The Registrar will be responsible for the referral of solicitor-client disputes to conciliation. He or she will also have power to hear and determine solicitor-client disputes which cannot be settled by conciliation and to hear allegations of misconduct and standards breach other than the most serious cases. The Registrar will have power to hear disputes concerning costs of up to $2500, or concerning larger amounts ifboth parties agree. The Registrar's hearings will provide a speedy and efficient forum for the hearing of less serious complaints and for the resolution of disputes. Dispute resolution The first step in the dispute resolution procedure prescribed by the Bill is informal conciliation by the Secretary of the Law Institute or the secretary's delegate. If settlement is not achieved, the Registrar will refer the dispute to a conciliator, who must be an experienced solicitor, for formal conciliation. If the dispute is not resolved by formal conciliation, the Registrar will conduct a formal hearing. This procedure is designed to assist complainants and solicitors to resolve their differences with the least possible formality, expense and delay. The Solicitors Board The Solicitors Board will consist of one member from a panel of solicitors appointed by the institute, one member from a panel of lay persons appointed by the Attomey­ General, and a chairperson, who will be a retired judge. The board will hear the most serious cases of standards breach and misconduct. This combination of Registrar's hearings by a person appointed by the institute with hearings by a three-person board in the more serious cases strikes a balance between the continued self-regulation of the legal profession on the one hand, and the Legal Profession Practice Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1691 requirement that the disciplinary procedure both operate impartially and be seen to do so on the other. Powers of the Registrar and the board The same sanctions can be imposed by the Registrar and by the board when hearing an allegation of standards breach. Important sanctions include: reprimanding or admonishing the solicitor; ordering the 'solicitor to undertake a course of education or to receive management or accounting advice; ordering that the solicitor's practice be subject to supervision; ordering the solicitor to pay a client or former client up to $2500 compensation; ordering the solicitor to reduce his or her charges; ordering the solicitor to forfeit his or her lien over the client's documents; ordering the solicitor to pay the costs of the proceedings. Where misconduct is established, the Registrar may, in addition, order the solicitor to pay the institute an amount not to exceed ten penalty units. The board may impose a penalty of up to 50 penalty units and may exercise the following additional powers: it may cancel, suspend or refuse to grant a practising certificate; it may order that the solicitor not engage in practice as a barrister for a specified period; it may order that the solicitor practise only as an employee solicitor for a specified period. The Bill empowers the Registrar and the board to award the complainant compensation of up to $2500 for loss caused by the solicitor, or to reduce the amount due on a bill of costs. It permits the resolution of disputes concerning relatively small amounts of money without requiring the complainant to incur the cost of civil action in the ordinary courts. Fee disputes concerning more than $2500 can also be dealt with ifboth parties agree. Appeals Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar may appeal to the board and any person aggrieved by a decision of the board at first instance may appeal to the Supreme Court. A solicitor whose application for a practising certificate has been refused or whose practising certificate is cancelled or suspended has an additional appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision ofthe board on appeal from the Registrar's hearing. Barristers Both the Bar Council and the Law Institute have expressed concern that practitioners whose practising certificates have been cancelled or whose names have been removed from the roll of counsel can continue to practise as barristers without being subject to the discipline of the institute or the council. The Bill closes this loophole in the scheme of professional regulation by requiring every practitioner, whether practising as a barrister, a solicitor or both, whose name does not appear on the bar roll to hold a practising certificate. In addition, the institute is empowered to refuse a practising certificate to a practitioner who has been disciplined by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal. 1692 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

A new provision has been inserted at the request of the Bar Council, empowering the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal to suspend from the bar roll barristers who are incapable of carrying on practice properly as a result of mental incapacity. An equivalent provision already exists in relation to solicitors. CONCLUSION The Bill implements a new structure for dealing with complaints against solicitors that will facilitate speedy and effective resolution of disputes. It empowers the legal profession to discipline its members for negligent and unprofessional work and provides a simple mechanism for compensating clients for loss of up to $2500. I commend the Bill to the House. On the motion ofMrs WADE (Kew), the debate was adjourned. Mr McCUTCHEON (Attorney-General)-I move: That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday week. Mrs WADE (Kew)-On the question of time, Mr Speaker, this is a complex Bill. I imagine it will be necessary to consult with both the Law Institute of Victoria and the Bar Council and possibly other interested parties. The Bill provides a fairly complex system of both initial procedures and appeals through the Registrar and the new board and, in certain circumstances, on to the Supreme Court. I will undertake to consider this as a matter of urgency but I ask the Minister to consider allowing additional time if it is required. Mr J. F. McGRA TH (Warrnambool)-On the question of time, it has been traditional in this House that Bills are adjourned for at least two weeks to allow time for discussion. As the House has a heavy workload in the time left for this sessional period, it is unreasonable to expect a Bill such as this to be dealt with in a short time. I ask the Attorney-General to adjourn the debate for two weeks. That will allow adequate time until the next sessional period within which to consult interested parties. Mr McCUTCHEON (Attorney-General) (By leave)-The request from the Opposition and the National Party is for additional time. I am agreeable to that request. The government is anxious for the Bill to be passed. Considerable consultation with the Law Institute and the Bar Council has already taken place. I am sure honourable members will find that both bodies are famihar with and in agreement with the provisions of the Bill. However, I shall negotiate with honourable members about the time when the Bill is debated in the House. The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, May 23.

OMBUDSMAN (AMENDMENT) BILL Mr CAIN (Premier)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make a number of amendments to the Ombudsman Act to improve the functioning of the Ombudsman's office. The Bill follows recommendations made by the Ombudsman and will amend the principal Act in the following ways: 1. TERM OF APPOINTMENT The Ombudsman Act provides that the Ombudsman holds office until the age of 72 years. The current Ombudsman has raised concerns that there is a real danger that the occupant of the office may remain in the job too long and become stale. To avoid this Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1693 danger the Ombudsman has recommended that the Act be amended to provide for a fixed, non-renewable term of office. The Ombudsman has suggested that a period of seven to eight years is an appropriate term of office. Clause 5 of the Bill reflects this and provides for a seven-year, non-renewable term of appointment. The proposed amendment will not affect the right of the current Ombudsman to remain in office until the age of 72. The amendment will not change the method of appointment or removal of the Ombudsman. In essence, it reinforces the independence of the Ombudsman. By setting a non-renewable term of office the Bill ensures that the Ombudsman's independence cannot be compromised. 2. OA8CERSOFTHEOMBUDSMAN Officers of the Ombudsman are presently appointed by the Governor in Council. Following recent consultation with the Ombudsman it has been decided that his staff should be employed under the Public Service Act 1974. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill amend sections 7 and 8 of the Ombudsman Act to provide these new appointment provisions. Current staffin the Ombudsman's office will not be disadvantaged by these new provisions. The terms and conditions of their employment will be no less favourable than those on which they were appointed officers of the Ombudsman and they will have the benefit of all rights accrued as such officers. 3. INQUIRIES It is the Ombudsman's view that a high proportion of complaints received by his office could be resolved through informal inquiry procedures. The Ombudsman also believes he should be able to determine informally whether an administrative action has occurred that requires investigation by his office. At present, these provisions are not included in the Act and information gathered in an informal manner is not covered by the confidentiality provisions of the Act. This contrasts with the position of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, for example, who can conduct informal inquiries and who has demonstrated the effectiveness of such inquiries in resolving complaints. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will enable the Ombudsman to resolve matters through informal inquiries and allow him to make such inquiries to establish whether an investigation by his office is necessary. The confidentiality provisions of the Ombudsman Act are also extended to informal inquiries made by the Ombudsman. 4. MATTERS RELATED TO CONFIDENTIALITY Section 20 of the Ombudsman Act provides that information obtained in the course of an investigation shall not be disclosed except in very limited circumstances. The scope of this section has proved to be unclear and has resulted in legal challenges. Concerns have also been raised that this section could be used to prevent relevant information being given by the Ombudsman to a complainant. Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill will clarify the disclosure provisions in the Act. They confirm the circumstances in which information obtained under the Act can be used in legal proceedings. Clause 13 will amend section 24 of the Ombudsman Act to enable the Ombudsman to disclose any information he thinks proper to a complainant. 1694 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

5. PROSECUTIONS Persons who mislead or obstruct the Ombudsman, take advantage of or unlawfully disclose information obtained under the Act or interfere with correspondence to or from the Ombudsman can be prosecuted for offences under the Act. The Ombudsman has recommended that except where proceedings are instituted by his office, prosecutions should be permitted only with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Clause 12 of the Bill reflects this recommendation. 6. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS The Bill includes a number of minor amendments to the Ombudsman Act. These ensure that the definitions of"government department" and "principal officer" accord with those in the Public Service Act 1974. Honourable members should note that, in light of the change to the definition of "government department", the Electoral Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions will be added to the list of bodies and persons in section 13 (3) of the principal Act. Administrative actions of those bodies and persons are not subject to investigation by the Ombudsman. The amendment to exclude the Electoral Commissioner reflects the change in status of the Chief Electoral Officer to the Electoral Commissioner. Like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman himself, the Electoral Commissioner is an officer of, and accountable to, the Parliament. It is not appropriate for him to be subject to investigation by another officer of the Parliament. Both the Electoral Commissioner and the Ombudsman share this view. Provisions are already included in section 13 of the Ombudsman Act to exclude legal advisers to or counsel for the Crown from the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. However, these provisions pre-date the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, as such, are ambiguous in relation to that office. That ambiguity will be removed by specifically adding the Director of Public Prosecutions to section 13 (3) of the Act. Schedule three A of the Public Service Act will also be amended to include the "Ombudsman" and the "Office of the Ombudsman". This will enable the Ombudsman to exercise the powers of a chief administrator under the Public Service Act in relation to his staff. The Bill also includes provisions for statute law revision. 7. CONCLUSION This Bill will serve to clarify and reinforce a number of provisions in the Ombudsman Act. It will enhance the effective and efficient operation of the Ombudsman's office. The Bill will implement amendments requested by the current Ombudsman and is a further example of the administrative law reforms undertaken by this government. I commend the Bill to the House. On the motion ofMrs WADE (Kew), the debate was adjourned. It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Thursday, May 25. Public Service (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1695

PUBLIC SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL Mr CAIN (Premier): I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides a chief administrator with power to direct an officer to perform other duties temporarily or to take leave of absence with pay pending investigation and formulation of a possible charge. Suspicion alone is not a sufficient ground to chaIle an officer with a disciplinary offence. It is often necessary to conduct an investigation to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to form the basis of a charge. The power to direct an officer to perform other duties or to take leave of absence with pay in such circumstances is necessary to provide for cases in which this might remove potential danger to clients or other staff of an agency or an impediment to an investigation. To meet concerns that the officer concerned should not be relieved of normal duties for longer than absolutely necessary, the Bill requires a chief administrator to decide within a reasonable time whether to proceed to the next step in the process, that is, giving the officer an opportunity to make an explanation before charging the officer with what appears to be an offence. The Bill also requires that a chief administrator must reach a decision within a reasonable time on whether charges should be laid. The use of this provision and guidance on what is reasonable will be dealt with in guidelines to be issued by the Public Service Board following consultation with the approved staff associations. I commend the Bill to the House. On the motion of Mrs WADE (Kew), the debate was adjourned. It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Thursday, May 25.

EDUCATION ACTS (OVERSEAS STUDENTS) BILL Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. Victoria's educational system enjoys a reputation overseas for quality and integrity. Overseas students who come to Victoria to study are generally young and often have no family networks in Australia. Many are of school age and most of those who come to study English have little or no English initially. All are required to pay substantial tuition fees in advance. Recent instances of exploitation of overseas students in Victoria have attracted great media interest in our target markets, such as South-East Asia, harming the reputation of the industry as a whole. Following adverse publicity overseas of unscrupulous practices in a number of States, the Australian Education Council (AEC) in June 1988 agreed to measures to protect the reputation of Australian educational services offered to overseas students. It was agreed that State governments would introduce procedures for approving institutions and courses offered to overseas students, and that from 1 July 1989 the Commonwealth would issue overseas student visas only for courses or institutions approved by the States. Accordingly, this Bill applies to non-government schools and to courses offered to overseas students by government and non-government education institutions. In 1696 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Education Acts (Overseas Students) Bill relation to such schools and courses, the Bill will provide a statutory basis for: a voluntary system of assessment and approval; the charging of fees from institutions for assessments; and the provision of advice about the outcomes of assessments to the Commonwealth government, for purposes of visa issue. The Bill will not compel institutions to seek assessment and approval, nor will it prohibit institutions not granted approval from offering or providing services to overseas students. However, consistent with the AEC resolution, the Victorian system of approval will be an obvious and relevant consideration for Commonwealth officials charged with responsibility for issuing visas to prospective overseas students. The Victorian system will also enable prospective overseas students, when dealin~ with overseas agents of Victorian institutions, to establish whether the institutIon is approved by the Victorian government, before they pay their deposit. These new powers, under the Education Act 1958, will be exercised by Ministerially authorised officers. Honourable members will be aware that consultation is currently taking place on reform of the legislation covering the State training system. Pending a decision on reform of the legislation, the new powers under the Post-Secondary Education Act will be conferred on the Minister and will be delegated to the State Training Board and the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. Institutions which are not granted approval or whose approval is suspended or withdrawn will have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Fair, relevant and cost-effective guidelines and procedures for assessing and approving services will be developed for each education sector in conjunction with educational institutions and their associations. The guidelines will be published and widely distributed, and will be reviewed and revised from time to time with the participation of educational institutions and their associations, to ensure that they are operating efficiently. The guidelines will cover such areas as financial planning, marketing and promotional materials, use of agents, student selection, numbers of students, class sizes and contact hours, premises and resources, curriculum and course planning, course nomenclature, qualifications and experience of staff, fee collection and refund processes and the institution's contract with the student or parents, student grievance procedures, welfare services, and arrival and attendance monitoring. It is expected that the Bill will provide the basis for a system of minimum cost which avoids disruption to institutions while safeguarding Victoria's reputation for quality education and the welfare of overseas students. It will provide the foundation for further rapid growth in the export of Victorian educational services, and for the benefits of further employment generation and foreign exchange earnings. I commend the Bill to the House. On the motion ofMr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth), the debate was adjourned. Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I move: That the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth)-Having examined the Bill, I find that a large number of educational institutions are involved. Those institutions' umbrella organisations no doubt have been consulted by the Ministry. If the Opposition is to do its job effectively, considerable consultation will be necessary, and a week is not long enough in which to do that. Will the Minister undertake that, if the organisations require the services of the Ministry of Education, those services will be forthcoming to help in the process? The Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1697 decision to introduce the Bill was made over a month ago and the government has only one more week left in this sessional period. It is an insult to Parliament to present a Bill as late as this that requires wide-ranging consultation. Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education) (By leave)-I thank the honourable member for his willingness to proceed provided adequate consultation takes place. Ministry officers will be available and have already been made available, and I thank the honourable member again for his preparedness to examine the Bill in such a short period. I will endeavour to ensure that every piece of information that the Opposition requires is made available. ' The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Thursday, May 18.

CORRECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from March 21) on the motion of Mr Crabb (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr COOPER (Mornington)-The Corrections (Amendment) Bill results from the lack of confidence-indeed, the almost total lack of credibility-in the sentencing system which first started to manifest itself so obviously in 1984. This was reflected in an editorial in the Geelong Advertiser of 22 June 1988, which says: Those people who believe that our courts are too soft on criminals won an ally this week in the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, who, in opening the Second International Criminal Law Congress at Surfers Paradise, said a great weakness in our present system was the lack of relationship between the sentence and the period that was actually served after parole, remissions and early release schemes had eroded it. Sir Harry Gibbs, who retired as Chief Justice in February last year after sitting on the bench for sixteen years, told the congress that for the law to be an effective deterrent it should deliver what it proposed . . . He told the congress: "It should be apparent that if the law threatens fourteen years imprisonment for a particular crime, and an offender convicted of that crime is released after fourteen months, the threats will lose some credibility". The editorial goes on to say: The law seems tilted in favor of criminals so much that police find it difficult to gain enough information to launch a prosecution, let alone obtain a conviction. And when a charge is found proved, a gentle sentence by the court not only undermines the work of police in obtaining a conviction, but fails to enforce the law to its utmost. Often there are mitigating circumstances, but public confidence in the legal system has been so badly shaken by the imposition of penalties that do not befit the crime. As Sir Harry Gibbs has suggested, the law can be made an effective deterrent provided the courts instil a sense of purpose in their sentences. A stronger enforcement of the law may even produce a reduction in our crime rate. A long series of events that created public outrage at what was happening with convicted persons in Victoria brought the sentencing and penal system to its lowest ebb ever in 1985. The Cain government was dragged unwillingly by the Opposition and the community into a position where it was forced to at least be seen to be taking some action. In October 1985, the then Attorney-General, the present Minister for Transport, appointed a committee headed by the Honourable Sir John Starke, QC with terms of reference which required it to review current sentencing policies and practice in Victoria and elsewhere, and to examine and report on the full range of sentencing options, including remissions, prerelease, parole, temporary leave and any other matters which shortened sentences. Other aspects impacting on the sentencing and custody of prisoners were also included in the terms ofreference for the committee. The committee

Session 1989-55 1698 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill reported with its recommendations in April 1988 and this Bill is, according to the Minister in his second-reading speech, the first part of the government's response. At the outset, I make it clear that the Opposition is supportive of many of the recommendations of the Starke committee and responds positively to the main thrust of what that committee set out as desirable. When the report was released, the Opposition was encouraged by the apparent embracing by the government of the committee's report and looked forward with pleasure to legislation from the government which backed up its early rhetoric. The need to provide reassurance to the community that credibility would return to the sentencing and penal system, and the need to ensure that those who are convicted and sentenced are left in no doubt about the surety of the sentence given to them was, the Opposition believed, agreed to by all sides of the Parliament as both necessary and desirable. It was, therefore, with considerable disbelief that, on examining the Bill, Opposition members and I realised that, once again, the government has walked away from what is right and proper, and has once again failed to deliver. In avoiding what it should have tackled, the government has simply left the mess lying around that it, by its sins of incompetence and mismanagement since 1982, created in the first place. The Opposition is disgusted that many key recommendations of the Starke committee have been avoided or bypassed by the government, and the community should be made fully aware of the government's failures. The Opposition notes with interest that its concerns about the proposed legislation are shared strongly by Sir John Starke, head of the committee that the government set up. Sir John is the man whom the government appointed, but the committee has condemned the government's approach to the proposed legislation and to the particular major problem that has worried and concerned the community for so long since 1982. The Age newspaper of 28 April this year reports: A former Supreme Court Judge, Sir John Starke, yesterday accused the Victorian Government of introducing dishonest prison sentencing legislation and of political opportunism. Sir John, Chairman of the Sentencing Committee, said the Corrections (Amendment) Bill would lead to trouble in prisons, overcrowding, and continued public confusion over criminal gaol terms. "This miserable Bill is no more than a dishonestexcercise in political opportunism", Sir John said. The government had virtually ignored the recommendations of his committee's two-year inquiry into Victoria's sentencing system. Sir John said sentencing problems, including the perceived lenient treatment of prisoners and confusion over maximum sentences would continue because the Bill did not change the remission system. He was supported by other speakers, including the Secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties, Mr David Allen, and a Monash Law lecturer, Mr Ari Freiberg, who said the Bill, "shifted the penal furniture" while purporting to introduce reforms. Sir John said the government was not bound to accept recommendations from his committee "but what the government is not entitled to do is to try and push through a feeble and miserable piece oflegislation under the guise of accepting our recommendations". 'This is a political manoeuvre. The government has presented this Bill as implementing a part or whole of our recommendations. That is political dishonesty." That ends Sir John's quote in the Age. The Sun on the same date reports: The Starke report recommended abolishing the automatic remissions system giving prisoners a third off their sentence which the new Bill abolishes replacing it with merit time. Sir John said merit time when time off the sentence was earned by good behaviour and industriousness was subjective and open to abuse. More importantly, he said, prison officers now don't interfere with drug taking in prison because it's trouble and will not refuse merit time as that would cause even more trouble. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1699

Sir John condemned government legislation, the Corrections (Amendment) Bill, saying not one of his report's major recommendations are being implemented. "This miserable and feeble piece of legislation is nothing more than a somewhat dishonest exercise in political opportunism", Sir John said. "It is a political manoeuvre under the guise of implementing our report." Those two newspapers have presented similar reports of Sir John's statement. What was the response of the Minister responsible for corrections, to those criticisms of Sir John Starke? The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is reported in the Age as saying that Sir John simply does not understand. It is very obvious now to the Opposition and it certainly should be obvious to the community that this government believes it is the only one in step. It fails to respond to any of the legitimate criticisms levelled at this proposed legislation by people of the calibre and eminence of Sir John Starke and his colleagues, of criticisms by the Opposition, and of criticisms by other groups within the community that can claim to have expertise in the area of prisons and prison reform. I repeat that the Opposition is disgusted that many key recommendations of the Starke committee have been avoided or bypassed by this government and it is imperative that the community of Victoria should be made fully aware of these failures of the government because those failures will certainly threaten the community; they are failures which fail to return credibility to the sentencing and penal system; and failures which amply demonstrate that this government has no will to deal with these difficult but vitally important matters. My colleagues and I in the Opposition intend to ensure that the failures of the government are highlighted and that its continuing gross incompetence and mismanagement are exposed. A book was written many years ago by a man called John Locke. It is called Second Treatise of Government and described by Sir Frederick Pollock as probably the most important contribution ever made to English constitutional law by an author who was not a lawyer by profession. In the opening chapter Locke defined political power as: A right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws ... and all this only for the public good. Locke, in that treatise of government, categorically states that political power should be "only for the public good". Therefore, it is very necessary that we should establish what is the public good in re~ard to sentencin~ and custody of offenders. Do we pay attention to the expressed opInion of the pubhc itself or do we pay attention only to the so-called professionals in this area, for example, the judiciary, the Office of Corrections bureaucrats or the police? Ifwe give heed to the former, we must condemn this Bill as inadequate because these people clearly made their views known in the newspapers that they see this Bill as being inadequate and failing to meet proper standards. That has been made quite clear in the responses from the public. They have described the Bill as a sell-out of the victims of crime and the law-abiding majority in the community. If we give heed only to the latter-the trio of judiciary, Office of Corrections bureaucrats and the police-we should also condemn this Bill as a failure, because at least two of the three have also clearly regarded the Bill as inadequate. The question, therefore, must be raised: if this Bill fails to address "the public good", what is its reason for being? The answer to that question, of course, can be provided only by the government. The Opposition certainly has a view on the matter and its view is shared by such people of eminence as Sir John Starke. Our belief is that 1700 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill the company we share in regard to an opinion on this proposed legislation is far and away more credible than any support this government is able to dredge up. I now want to list some of the major recommendations of the Starke report on sentencing which have been avoided or ignored by the Cain government. Firstly, the committee recommended that Parliament should articulate policies on sentencing and that policy should be applied by the courts. This Bill fails to address that recommendation. The committee recommended that all mandatory minimum penalties should be repealed and replaced by provisions which provide for either a particular penalty, unless exceptional circumstances apply, or the specification of aggravating factors to be taken into account when passing sentences. That recommendation has not been included in this Bill. Next, the committee recommended that the Full Court should be empowered to give guideline judgments. The Bill fails to address that issue. Next, the committee recommended that ajudicial studies board should be established to prepare information and guidelines on sentencing. That issue has not been addressed in this Bill. The committee recommended that Parliament adopt a scheme of maximum sentences: that maximum sentences proposed in the report be adopted by legislation and all other sentences be revised. The Bill fails to deal with that recommendation as well. The committee also recommended that provisions for suspended sentences be raised. That has not been addressed in the Bill either. The committee also recommended that legislation should set out a hierarchy of available sentences to be used by the courts in establishing an order of severity of sentences. This too has been avoided by this government. They are but some of the major shortcomings in regard to the addressing of the Starke committee~s report on sentencing by this government in what it purports to be the first stage of addressing the recommendations of that report. Having highlighted those shortcomings, which are matters of great importance, if we are to have a credible and acceptable system of sentencing and custody in Victoria, I also direct to the attention of the House that the Opposition has real concerns over some of the so­ called initiatives that are actually contained in the Bill. We note with concern certain aspects relating to the pilot home detention programme, to the application of merit time, to the phasing-out period for prerelease and other matters which we intend to address in detail during the Committee stage. I make it quite clear to the government that the Liberal Party does not intend to allow clear passage to any legislative measure on this important issue which does not meet the criteria of what is right and proper, and which does not meet community expectations. The community, correctly, demands that the punishment should reflect the seriousness of the offence and, importantly, the community demands that sentences given should be carried out. I want to stress again that this measure is only before the House today because of community outrage over the hopeless inadequacies of the present system, and its mismanagement by the government. The revolving prison gate was a Cain government invention and a testament to the left-wing looneys who control the government. The community demands meaningful changes that reflect the seriousness of the issue, and the Opposition is determined to ensure that this occurs. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1701

If the goverment maintains its present position of failing to deliver on its rhetoric and failing to deliver to community expectations, the Liberal Party will have to drag the government from its ideological bunker and force it to carry out its obligations. We do not intend to see truth in sentencing once again become a casualty of the government. Both the community and the convicted person should have a surety about the sentence that has been handed down, and the Bill demonstrably fails to give that surety. Under the provisions of the Bill no-one can know what the minimum sentence is that a prisoner will serve. The right time to deal with the detail of all those inadequacies will be during the Committee stage, and it will be at that time that the Opposition intends to examine the Bill in the fullest detail. My colleagues and I are appalled at the hyprocrisy and double standards of the government that have been clearly exposed by the content of the Bill, and the way in which it has been presented to the Victorian public. We know that our views are shared by most people who have any kind of interest in lepslation in this important area. I am sure those people would believe Sir John Starke has truly reflected their doubts when he describes the measure as a miserable Bill and nothing more than a dishonest exercise in political opportunism. The Minister responsble for corrections and the Premier have no credibility in attacking Sir John Starke as they have, describing him as a person who simply does not understand. The time is now overdue for the government to have the decency to stand up and publicly reveal its true agenda in regard to sentencing, along with its true agenda on the whole area of law and order. For example, where does the government stand with regard to programs to keep young offenders out of gaol? Nothing has been heard from the government on this matter and yet programs exist that the government could implement but it has failed to do so. Programs are in place elsewhere in the country and elsewhere in the world. The other day I received a copy of a letter that was written to a colleague of mine, the Honourable Geoff Connard in another place, from a prisoner in A division at Pentridge Prison, a Russell Martin Johnson. Mr Johnson wrote in his letter: The reason for my writing is my concern for those young people who have offended or will offend against the law in the future. I may be a mere crim' but I have children myself and I would hate to see them in here. I am trying to start a program for the determent against crime for young offenders. The program is titled "the Day-in-Gaol Program". This program can be used by a "justice", "judge" or "magistrate" when they are reluctant to sentence a young offender to a custodial term in either a prison or youth correctional centre. The youngster would be a "high risk" offender who was on the borderline of entering the above institutions but still had to be deterred from future law-breaking and punished. This program is unique and although it uses the threat of further punishment as a consequence of criminal behaviour, it is not in itself an agent of threat. The program has an educative rather than punitive emphasis and is designed to educate and change the attitudes which is initiated and administered by prisoners which uses examples and fear to a limited degree ...... The "Day-in-Gaol Program" relies on rationality and reasoning combined with the somewhat threatening situation of a realistically simulated day in gaol ... This program operated from HM Gaol Parramatta in Sydney and has just commenced operating again. The success figures are still well over 70 per cent for referrals who went through the program at that time ... The effect that the custodial sentence has had on the young offender is more likely to be negative than positive to aid his rehabilitation. They are released angrier and unleash that anger on the innocent public ... The more hardened inmate just re-educates the young offender into new concepts of crime which really makes institutions a brainwashing centre for crime ... 1702 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

I do not say that this program is the total answer to crime, but it can operate in cooperation with programs set up by concerned government departments or voluntary agencies. This is an example of a scheme presented to us by a prisoner, which has real merit and actually addresses the issues that we, as a community, should be addressing and that is how to keep people out of gaol. Mr Crabb-Is that your policy? Mr COOPER-The Minister turns around in his usual blustering way, his usual hectoring way and is joined now by his hectoring friend, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs and all they do is shout. I am simply saying to the Minister who purports to be in charge of the system that here is something he could be doing and should have been looking at. Mr Crabb-Is that your policy? Mr COOPER-He is hectoring and shouting and carrying on, yet it is quite clear that in all the time he has been in charge of the corrections system, includin~ the time of his predecessor, the government has failed to address this kind of simple Initiative. It has taken a prisoner from Her Majesty's prison to come out with this system and address it and hope that the government will pick it up. I should certainly be examining it, and I question why the government has not. Mr Crabb-I am simply asking whether this is your policy. Mr COOPER-If the Minister would like the Opposition to take over, we would certainly be happy to do so, and we would do a damn better job than the government has! The Opposition is saying to the government that it has made a total and utter failure of this whole matter. The Bill does not do what it sets out to do; it simply moves the penal furniture around, as has been described by some of the critics. The Liberal Party has been maintaining for a long time that the government is soft on crime and soft on criminals, and it certainly does not have the interests of the law­ abiding community and, more particularly, of the victims of the crimes at heart. The Bill confirms that our charges against the government on this issue are well­ founded. All of the important areas of change in the penal and sentencing systems in Victoria have been ignored or bypassed by the government and, once again, the Liberal Party calls on the government to meet its rhetoric and responsibilities to the entire State of Victoria. So far, it has demonstrably failed in meeting any of its actions to date on this issue. Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-According to the government the Bill has transpired primarily from the recommendations of the Starke report and, of course, further inquiries have been conducted by the Honourable B. L. Murray, QC, in August 1988. The Starke report was an extensive study conducted by the Honourable Sir John Starke, QC, which dealt with all matters relating to sentencing. I should like to take this opportunity of commending Sir John Starke and his committee on the way in which they undertook their work over a two-year period, because it is one of the most detailed studies of a sentencing system that we have seen in Australia in recent decades. In 1985 the then Attorney-General, who is now the Minister for Transport, commissioned an inquiry into a review of the sentencing laws and practice applying to offenders against State laws in Victoria, and to report to the government on the need, if any, to reform those laws and practices. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1703

That committee was established under the chairmanship of Sir John Starke who was a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria and Chairman of the Adult Parole Board. Other members of the committee of inquiry included the Honourable Justice Alastair Nicholson who, until January 1988, was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria and Chairman of the Parole Board of Victoria, and was then appointed Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia. The deputy chairman was His Honour Judge Shillito, a Judge of the County Court of Victoria and also a member of the Adult Parole Board. Other members of the Victorian Sentencing Committee were Mr J. M. Dugan, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria and a member of the criminal justice committee; Mr Ben Bodna, the former permanent head of Community Services Victoria and now the Public Advocate appointed under the provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Board Act; Dr Austin Lovegrove, Chairman of the Criminology Department of the University of Melbourne; and Mr John Van Groningen, the Director of the Criminal Justice Unit within the Attorney-General's Department-and Mr Van Groningen was also the secretary of the sentencing committee. It was a high-powered committee which, for two years, examined every aspect of the criminal justice system­ at enormous cost to the public. The three-volume report published by the committee should be read by anyone who is interested in the subject. Mr Crabb interjected. Mr McNAMARA-I have not read the second and third volumes in any detail, but I have thoroughly read the first volume. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr McNAMARA-Those two volumes are recommended by the honourable member for Mornington! The response to the Bill has been disappointing, particularly by those who were involved in the examination of the sentencing committee. In general terms, the Bill proposes to abolish the right to automatic remission of sentences; to introduce the concept of merit time for good conduct and industry; to phase out the prerelease system; to establish a home detention program; to provide additional powers to deal with prisoner discipline and management; to ensure that imprisonment for fine default is used only as a last resort; to introduce specific leave provisions; and to make the terminology of custodial sentences more directly reflect the court's intentions. Before the establishment of the Starke committee, the sentencing system was in disrepute. Sentences that were handed down were not served fully, and there was growing public disquiet that neither the sentencing system nor the prison system was coping. Major improvements have been made in facilities. The building of the new Remand Centre is a tribute to the government, and the centre is an improvement on the archaic conditions that are provided at Pentridge Prison. New country prisons have been built, and some of the more antiquated prisons are being closed down. Crime rates have increased over the past ten years. The former Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr Mick Miller, readily provided the public with the statistics. The Police Force continues to provide those figures, which show that the crime rate is increasing alarmingly. It would be naive to believe that radical surgery is not needed in the area of sentencing and to assist the Police Force to carry out its proper functions. Although not directly related, the fact that the sentences imposed by the courts are not fully served-and some prisoners serve only a small fraction of the sentence they receive-brings the sentencing system into disrepute and fails to deter potential offenders. 1704 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

I direct to the attention of the House the reported comments of Sir John Starke in the Age of 28 April. The article states that at that time Sir John was strongly of the view that the government was about to introduce a dishonest prison sentencing Bill, and he accused the government of political opportunism-a charge that is often levelled against the government. After spending a great deal of time and effort examining the issue and after diligently preparing the report, Sir John is sorely disappointed with the Bill. The article states: Sir John, chairman of the Sentencing Committee, said the Corrections (Amendment) Bill would lead to trouble in prisons, over-crowding, and continued public confusion over criminal jail terms. He spoke about the Bill, which is due to be debated in State Parliament in the next three weeks, at a seminar on sentencing at the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Training College, Abbotsford. "This miserable Bill is no more than a dishonest exercise in political opportunism", Sir John said. The government had virtually ignored the recommendations of his committee's two-year inquiry into Victoria's sentencing system. Sir John said sentencing problems, including the perceived lenient treatment of prisoners and confusion over maximum sentences, would continue because the Bill did not change the remissions system. That is a fatal flaw in the Bill. The article further states: He was supported by other speakers, including the secretary ofthe Council for Civil Liberties, Mr David Allen, and a Monash law lecturer, Mr Ari Freiberg, who said the Bill "shifted the penal furniture" while purporting to introduce reforms. Sir John said the government had legislated for a pilot home-detention scheme, which the committee "expressly did not recommend", and for earned remissions or "merit time", which the committee had also rejected. "We did not recommend merit time. We recommended the phasing-out altogether of remissions. " The Sentencing Committee interviewed hundreds of people involved in the prison system, including politicians, police, lawyers, prisoners, victims of crime, and officials of the Health Department and Community Services Victoria. Its report was released last May. The report is worthy of more consideration than the government has given it. Further: Sir John said the government was not bound to accept recommendations from his committee. "But what the government is not entitled to do is to try and push through a feeble and miserable piece of legislation under the guise of accepting our recommendations. "This is a political manoeuvre. The government has presented this Bill as implementing a part or whole of our recommendations ... That is political dishonesty." They are clear words from the chairman of the Victorian Sentencing Committee. The article further states: Under the Bill, all early-release programs and automatic remissions would be abolished and replaced with merit time. The Bill also proposes changes in sentencing from maximum and minimum terms to more clearly defined periods of imprisonment and parole. That is clear and needs no elaboration. It is worth noting that the Starke committee opposes the automatic remission sytem, a system that is undermining public confidence in the sentencing system. It is fair to say that 95 per cent of prisoners receive remissions of their sentences 95 per cent of the time. I doubt whether the proposed changes in the Bill will achieve what the government intends. The automatic remissions system should not be used as an administrative tool. The government must address the problem quickly. The phasing out proposal in the Bill has been included because the government faces a housing problem. The prerelease scheme should be immediately abolished­ certainly that would be a more responsible approach. But the National Party Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1705 understands that, if that were to occur, the government would be faced with immediate housing problems. The introduction of a system of merit time has dangers; it will virtually become like automatic remission. There is a suggestion in the proposed legislation that merit time will be available for good conduct and industry. As honourable members know, the opportunity for industry is not available to all prisoners. Therefore, in lieu of that availability of industry, I suppose prisoners will get automatic merit time in any case. We will see the merit time replacing automatic remission; it will be just another name for the same thing. As the honourable member for Mornington interjects, it is just shifting the penal furniture around. The prerelease system certainly created administrative problems and again, I think, the Starke committee raises concern about the direction the government is taking. I mention the home detention program because it was requested as an alternative to sentencing or it can be used as a sentencing shortening method. I think it is inappropriate as a sentencing shortening method. In other parts of the world it has been shown not to be particularly successful, and it places many serious offenders back into their homes where they have the opportunity of committing further violence. The National Party has a number of concerns about the proposed legislation, and it would like to go through them in some detail. I could take the opportunity of reading into H ansard all the recommendations of the Starke report, but that would take some time; there is certainly not enough time left in this day. I think the government should address the problems raised by the Starke report. It is disappointing that a person who has put so much time and effort into a detailed report should receive such a slap in the face from the government. The government is doing nothing more than rearranging the prison furniture. There are some areas where the National Party has to acknowledge that the government is picking up the major recommendations of the Starke report but, in general terms, I lament that it fails to do so. The Liberal Party will move an amendment during the Committee stage which the National Party will support in the hope of improving the proposed legislation. Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-Law and order is the most pressing issue so far as the people of Victoria are concerned. This was demonstrated in the result of a Saulwick poll published in the Age which showed that 47 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women thought law and order was the most important issue affecting their lives. The Bill is part of the government's pathetic approach to trying to give the people of Victoria a stronger law and order policy. Recently, as honourable members would be aware, I held a public meeting in Glen Waverley on the subject of law and order and 200 people attended. Their biggest complaint was about-- Mr Crabb-Where was this? Mr E. R. SMITH-The meeting was held on 13 February at the civic centre in Glen Waverley. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services was invited. Mr Crabb-Was that the one about the telephone tapping? Mr E. R. SMITH-The Minister says that the meeting was some sort of fly-by­ night meeting. More than 200 people turned up at the meeting wanting to put forward a tremendous amount of information. A number of members of Parliament came along to listen. The idea of the meeting was to listen to what people had to say about law and order. By way of interjection, the Minister comments about telephone tapping amendments. I do not know what he is talking about. I think he is trying to say that at 1706 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill that stage the police were conducting telephone tapping in connection with the Tynan-Eyre case, a tragic event in police history. The Minister later came out and said that he had managed to keep his mouth shut during that period. I know the telephone tapping was going on at that time, and the last thing I wanted to do was break security on telephone tapping techniques. Anyone who would want to prejudice a serious police investigation by in any way hinting that a police operation was going on would have to be as irresponsible as this Minister who later-when the telephone tapping ceased-announced to the world how clever he was to have kept his mouth shut during that period. Any indication of police procedures, especially telephone tapping by the police in respect of criminal activity, to my way of thinking, is absolutely outrageous. Governments, both Liberal and Labor, have consistently replied "No comment" to questions on the subject of national security. The Minister had a responsibility, even after the Tynan-Eyre telephone tapping case had tapered off, not to say anything. To be blazing forth, as the Minister did recently in the Sun, shows how irresponsible he is. Approximately half an hour ago, when the honourable member for Mornington was putting forward what I consider to be a pretty reasonable suggestion from a prisoner about an idea that could be developed, all the Minister could say was: "Is that Liberal Party policy?" Mr Crabb-Is it? Mr E. R. SMITH-The Minister is an antagonistic fool who will not in any way listen to other people. Imagine if we had in this State the bipartisan approach we would want to have in lots of other areas of government! However, the Minister is antagonistic to anybody who proposes suggestions. The Minister loves to be antagonistic. The honourable member for Mornington had a letter from Russell Johnson with a suggestion about how young people could perhaps be led in the right direction and away from lives of crime. What did the Minister do? The Minister does what is typical for him-he criticises, hectors, and does everything possible to rubbish what could be a good idea without listening to it. All the Minister says-and no doubt he will start interjecting again now because it is so typical of him-is: is that Liberal Party policy? The idea is there. Mr Crabb-Do you have a policy? Mr E. R. SMITH-There he goes! The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Deizoppo )-Order! I ask the Minister to contain himself. He will be able to close the debate in a few minutes. Mr E. R. SMITH-The whole point about the Bill is that it does not do anything to alleviate the fears of the people of Victoria about the sentencing of criminals. The people believe there is a revolving-door policy that takes away any confidence they have in the prison system or, indeed, in the whole criminal justice system, a criminal justice system which, from whichever way one tackles it, is left wanting. The Minister typifies the attitude of the government: he is aggressive; he does not listen; and he is completely arrogant when it comes to a decent and sensible debate about how to get the criminal justice system working when so many people in the suburbs are frightened about their security. What does the Minister for Police and Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1707

Emergency Services do? He just makes loud noises and does nothing. The Bill has a couple of good points. Mrs Hirsh interjected. Mr E. R. SMITH-There goes the Minister's assistant, his partner in crime. She will have a go, and waffle on like she always does. The Bill contains a couple of good points. The fact that drug testing of prisoners is now to be made compulsory is a good and very necessary provision and one that, in my opinion, should have been introduced years ago. The Bill will also enable the searching of visitors to prisons so that, if something is found on them, the police can be called and they can be arrested. The issue is really all about minimum penalties. What we have now are really apologies for minimum sentences. I assure the House that the Liberal and National parties will ensure that the minimum sentences that are set by judges in this State will be served by prisoners and all the mickey mouse proposals such as those put forward by the Minister will be rejected. We will not have any of them. The people of Victoria want a prison system where the minimum sentences are served, with no remissions. That is what the opposition parties will propose to the Minister in the Committee stage. The Liberal Party has received much correspondence about the proposed home detention scheme. One of the biggest pitfalls outlined in the letters that have been received is that families will have to take the place of the prison system; women and children will be subjected to a prison-type environment. Under the relevant provision in the Bill, the prison authorities will have the power to visit or telephone prisoners at home at any time of the day or night. In other words, the families' whole lives will be in a siege-type of situation. I am sure many people are extremely concerned about the proposal. To illustrate my point, I refer to the situation of prisoners who apply to participate in the home detention scheme. They contact their families and say that if their applications are successful they will be coming home. That may be the very last thing that their families would want, but how could they prevent it? The prisoners concerned may be men of great violence. In fact, some of the letters that the Opposition has received from people say that these sorts of people have violent dispositions. The point I make is that once the prisoner has suggested to the prison authorities that he wants to go home and once he has told his family, the family really does not have an option. Theoretically, his family can say it will refuse permission, but will it really do so in practice? The family knows that eventually he will get out of prison, and when he does-I can use the word "he" because our feminist friends do not mind us referring to criminals as "he"-he will eventually wreak his revenge. This is a proposed pilot scheme. I am prepared to allow it to be tried, but the test is whether the families of prisoners will have any real say in preventing such individuals from wrecking their way of life when, in fact, the prisoners should be spending their time in gaol. This is one of the main criticisms of the proposed home detention scheme. The Corrections (Amendment) Bill instantly brings to mind the question of morale of not only the prison officers but also the police in this State. One of the main complaints that the police have is that, after carrying out intensive investigations, after weeks and sometimes months of painstaking investigation, they find that once they have managed to get the prisoner into court, the prisoner is sentenced to a very 1708 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill minimum term in gaol, which is then reduced further through remissions. In the opinion of the police, the sentencing then becomes ajoke. Working police say this situation has a very detrimental effect on their morale and they want a sentencing scheme that enables them to see that their work is rewarded and that the sentencing system is effective. I have no doubt that 98 per cent of Victorians would want such a sentencing scheme to be established. They do not want prisoners to be allowed back into the community before serving what the courts consider to be the proper term in prison. At the same time the morale of the prison officers must also be considered. Last year I attended a meeting with several prison officers who wanted to tell members of the Liberal Party how they felt about the prison system and voice their complaints. One of the biggest complaInts they had was that they felt they were no more than key turners and petty officials who were there to allow the prisoners, who really run the gaols, to carry out their normal activities in gaol. In other words, prison officers believe they are not backed in any way by the prison administration system and that, at all stages, they are considered as nothing more than flunkies. One man at the meeting said, "They will bang on the door to get out and if you are a bit slow in letting them out they will abuse you". Members of the Liberal Party who were at the meeting asked the obvious question, "But surely you can lay a charge, can't you?" He said that one could do that, but the effect would be very minimal, that a great amount of fuss occurs, and one is continually abused by the prisoners. I have made a one-day visit to Pentridge Prison to see how it operates. The prison officers at the meeting said they are not running the gaols; that the gaols are being run by the prisoners themselves. That is a very sorry state of affairs. I sent a copy of a letter relating to the public meeting that I convened at Waverley on 13 February to both the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Premier. I assure the House that at no stage was there any mention in that letter of a motion calling for the introduction of telephone tapping, as has been suggested. The Minister would know that if he had read the letter, to which he has not bothered to reply. I wrote the letter on 16 February, and to date I have not received from him even an acknowledgement. If the Minister does not wish to write to me as a member of the Liberal Party, why does he not write to the editor of the Waverley Gazette, Mr Vivian Theobald and give him the benefit of his knowledge or that of his department? That would certainly be one way of the government demonstrating to the people ofWaverley that it cares, but instead it proposes these sorts of half-baked Bills. I refer now to the merit time proposals. In my opinion, they should relate only to the period between the minimum time imposed by a judge or magistrate and the maximum or head time. The proposed provision will take merit time away from the minimum sentence. Imagine taking it away from minimum sentences! At present, an armed robber who is sentenced to a maximum of eight years gaol generally is required to serve a minimum of six years. Currently, with full remissions of one-third of that minimum period, he becomes eligible for release after four years. The judge directed that a minimum time should be served, and the community is outraged at remissions for whatever reason. The Office of Corrections says there will be two classes of prisoners, but section 60 (5) of the Corrections Act says that a murderer must serve a minimum term without remissions. Remissions for murderers were abolished two years ago, and there was no great public outcry over it. Similarly, there would be no outcry from the community if all remissions were abolished from tomorrow or next week. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1709

As for the Minister coming back later and saying, "You have to have some form of reward in the gaols because if you do not you will not be able to run them effectively", I point out that the community wants an effective prison system that requires prisoners to serve their minimum sentences; all the reasons that the Minister may put forward later will mean nothing to the general community. If sentences are not to be regarded as a revolving-door policy or a big lie, prisoners must serve the minimum terms imposed by the courts. Merit time should be considered only after the minimum term is served. I assure the House that 95 per cent of the community supports this proposal. Before the last State election the government issued a document Victoria Building a Law-Abiding Society-Together, which states: The punishment should fit the crime ... Our society has become understandably confused by the complex mix of maximum sentences, minimum sentences, remissions, early release programs and parole. Because of this, the government in 1985 established the Victorian Sentencing Committee headed by Sir John Starke to undertake a comprehensive review of sentencing. The inference is that the public needs a simple, predictable and understandable system. The provisions in the Corrections (Amendment) Bill will not remove the public confusion. In fact, it has been said: This miserable Bill is no more than a dishonest exercise in political opportunism. They are not my words but those of Sir John Starke, as reported in the Age of 28 April 1989. The Bill proposes more revolving-door prison opportunities, unpredictable sentences and more public concern and confusion. Page 21 of the government's document states: We will legislate this year to make the most extensive changes ever to our sentencing system. That is untrue. The sentencing aspect of the Bill involves more of the same. Although automatic remissions are removed, as recommended by the Starke committee, they are to be replaced by a system called merit time. Merit time was certainly not recommended by Sir John Starke, as he has stated so publicly. He said: We did not recommend merit time. We recommend the phasing out altogether of remissions. A specific reason for incarcerating a person is to protect society from the felon. This is specifically accepted by the government in its Victoria Building a Law-Abiding Society-Together document and elsewhere. The Opposition is mindful of this, and perhaps places a greater priority on this aspect than does the government. Is society being protected from felons in ~aol? Of course not. With early remissions and the excuse for the ending of remission tIme, society is not being protected as much as it deserves. As an example of how prisoners in gaol are out of control, I cite an Office of Corrections document dated 1 March 1988 entitled "Prisoner Communication". The document contains the extraordinary advice from the Office of Corrections to prison officers: Prisoners are encouraged to maintain ... written and telephone communication. Any regulation of correspondence ... is to be applied in a consistent and humane manner to ensure a prisoner's privacy is maintained. This has resulted in prisoners in gaol being able, from their cells, to threaten violence to former victims, to witnesses and to others. For example, on 20 February and 24 March this year, a prisoner in one of Victoria's larger and more secure gaols was able, in writing, to harass a senior Victorian Crown official. He was facilitated in this enterprise by the provision of State government paper and envelopes and free postage­ postage paid by Victorians. Clearly this prisoner, this gaol and this penal system are out of control. 1710 ASSEMBLY 11 May 19.89 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

In conclusion, the Opposition and the National Party through proposed amendments will expose the sham that the Corrections (Amendment) Bill is. It does not do what it sets out to do. The Bill is merely another facade and is typical of the socialists. The Bill is long on words and short on actions. It is the sort of Bill one would expect from the Labor government. The Bill makes a lot of noise but does not deliver the goods. It professes to provide effective protection to the community. The community expects the government to provide an effective prison system, but this Bill is an apology. I call on all honourable members to take note of Sir John Starke when he said that this is an outrageous Bill, that it does not contain any of the recommendations that he set out, and that it is nothing more than a sham. Mrs WADE (Kew)-Previous speakers have adequately summarised the Bill. It is nothin$ but government propaganda. I am surprised that a photograph of the Minister for Pohce and Emergency Services is not on the front page of the Bill. The Bill does little, if anything at all. The Minister told the House and the media that this is the first stage in the government's response to the recommendations of the Victorian Sentencing Committee headed by Sir John Starke. Newspaper reports following the introduction of the Bill and the Minister's press release complimented the government on implementing the recommendations of the Starke report which had been well reeived when it was completed in 1988. An editorial in the Age stated: Before last year's election, the Premier, Mr Cain, promised that the early-release system would be reformed, and sense put back into sentencing. In so doing, he was mindful of the recommendations of the Victorian Sentencing Committee, headed by the former Supreme Court Judge, Sir John Starke, QC ... A Bill giving effect to many of the Sentencing Committee's suggestions is now before Parliament. I was somewhat puzzled by the words in that editorial because I had taken the trouble to compare the Bill with the recommendations of the Starke report. I discovered that none of the major recommendations in that report was included in the Bill. I shall refer briefly to some of the major recommendations. The recommendation that Parliament should articulate policies for sentencing and that those policies should be applied by the courts is not included in the Bill. The recommendation that all mandatory minimum penalties should be repealed and replaced by provisions which provide for either a particular penalty unless exceptional circumstances apply, or the specification of aggravating factors to be taken into account when passing sentence, is not included. The recommendation that the Full Court should be empowered to give guideline judgments is not included. The recommendation that a judicial studies board be established to prepare information and guidelines on sentencing was not included. The recommendation that both aggravating factors and mitigating factors to be taken into account in sentencing be specified in legislation is not included. The recommendation that Parliament adopt a scheme of maximum sentences, that the maximum sentences proposed in the report be adopted by legislation and all other sentences be revised is not included. The recommendation that provisions for suspended sentences be replaced is not included in the Bill. The SPEAKER-Order! The time appointed by Sessional Orders for me to interrupt business has now arrived. On the motion ofMr ROPER (Minister for Planning and Environment), the sitting was continued. Mrs WADE (Kew)-Another major recommendation not included in the Bill is the abolition over five years of remission of sentences. The Bill abolishes the remission Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1711 scheme but replaces it with a merit-time scheme. The remission scheme will not be abolished over five years as recommended by the Starke committee; it will be abolished when the Bill comes into operation. Prisoners who have received remission credits will be able to treat those remissions as merit time. Merit time will be gradually reduced. At first, it will be equivalent to remission time, which is one day in three. Subsequently it will be reduced to one day in four and eventually to one day in seven. The government has implied that that is included in the Bill, but the Bill contains no requirement for merit time to be reduced in that way. It will obviously be done by regulation. The change from remissions to merit time appears to be merely a change in words. The Opposition has been informed by the Director-General of Corrections that merit time will be given virtually automatically if a prisoner attends work and does not breach prison regulations. The Starke committee also recommended the abolition at the end of five years of the notion that when sentencing offenders courts can take remissions into account. The government has, nevertheless, gone ahead with its proposals for merit time and allows courts to take that into account. The Starke committee recommended that the prerelease scheme be abolished. However, the Bill phases out the scheme and replaces it with a home detention scheme. That scheme will apply in circumstances similar to those that apply to the prerelease scheme. Home detention was not recommended by the Stark committee, and it will not be a reduction from the total sentence but a reduction from the imprisonment portion of a sentence. None of the major recommendations of the Starke committee has been included in the Bill. The recommendations of the report were aimed at what is now called real­ time sentencing, and the Bill does not in any way move to real-time sentencing. The first words of the Starke report are: In 1985, for many reasons, confidence in the sentencing process in Victoria reached a low ebb.. The government has not responded to that concern in the community. The public sees a direct relationship, as does the Opposition, between the failure in the sentencing process and increased crime in Victoria. Police Force figures show increases in crime in 1986-87 compared with the previous year as follows: homicide, 11 per cent; serious assault, 5 per cent; robbery, a massive 25 per cent; rape, 9 per cent; burglary, 14 per cent; theft, 10 per cent; motor vehicle theft, 24 per cent; and fraud, 8 per cent. The Bill will do nothing to reduce the incidence of those crimes. The Opposition will propose amendments aimed at making an honest man of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services so that the Bill will go some way towards implementing the recommendations of the Starke committee. The Victorian Sentencing Committee comprises Sir John Starke, two other judges, the Chief Magistrate, the Public Advocate, the Chairman of the Criminology Department of the University of Melbourne and the Director of the Criminal Justice Unit of the Attorney-General's Department. The committee conducted a detailed inquiry that took more than three years to complete. The committee considered hundreds of submissions from various people and organisations. The government is free to disregard the recommendations of the report, but it is not free to disregard them and claim it is implementing the recommendations. 1712 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

Sir John Starke made that point when he said that the government was not bound to accept his recommendations but that it is not entitled to try to push through a "miserable" and "dishonest" piece of proposed legislation under the guise of accepting his recommendations. He described it as a political manoeuvre. Sir John said that the government had presented the Bill as if it were implementing a part or whole of the committee's recommendations. He described that as political dishonesty. Given those comments, it was not open to the Premier to say the following day that he did not accept the notion implicit in what Sir John Starke was saying, that the government should adopt everything he recommended. The Premier said the report was available for the government to consider and that he had discussed it with Sir John. The Starke report consists ofthree large volumes. The government did not disregard just part of the report, it disregarded virtually the entire report. The government has disregarded all the people and organisations who went to the trouble of making submissions to the Starke committee. That is another illustration of the Cain government's attitude to consultation. Honourable members continue to see glossy propaganda from the government referring to consultation. Every document issued-regardless of whether it is about economic policy, environmental policy, national parks, waterways, or Willsmere Hospital-refers to the consultation process. Inquiries are set up supposedly to expedite that process, but then the government takes no notice of either the consultation or the recommendations of inquiries. Honourable members should consider what is happening elsewhere in Australia. I direct the attention of the Minister to Queensland, where sentencing is also a matter of concern. The Queensland government has suggested it will introduce proposed legislation for open-ended sentences for dangerous criminals, that is, criminals who are considered a grave danger to society. That is not under consideration in Victoria. It seems that the rights of offenders in Victoria are given more consideration than the rights of victims or potential victims. The New South Wales government is introducing the "truth in sentencing" legislation. That has been in preparation for a year and will ensure that prisoners serve at least 75 per cent of their sentences. Moves have also been made in the Federal area. On 2 May the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, announced that there would no longer be remissions for prisoners held for Federal crimes. He said that State remissions that can reduce minimum sentences will no longer be available to prisoners serving time for Federal offences. Senator Tate said that the time has come to say, "No longer. This is a fraud on the public". He went on to say that under existing arrangements a judge gave a minimum term but it bore no relation to the actual time spent in prison and that in future the sentence will mean what it says; the prisoner will remain in prison for a period set by the judge. Senator Tate was also reported as saying that the change is designed to impose certainty in sentencing. The judge, the prisoner and the public will know at the time of sentencing for precisely how long the offender will be incarcerated. The situation has not changed in Victoria since the Starke committee first commenced its considerations. Public confidence in sentencing is at a low ebb. The government may suggest that the recent moves in Queensland and New South Wales towards "truth in sentencing" legislation are outcomes of conservative governments, but this government is out of step with the Federal Labor government and I ask the Minister to explain the difference in approach. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1713

In so far as the sentencing provisions are concerned, only the words have changed. Remissions have become merit time, prerelease has become home detention. The government is not telling the truth when it says it is implementing the Starke committee report. If the government introduced "truth in sentencing" legislation, merit time, at the very least, would be deducted from the full sentence and not from the term of imprisonment. This is remission under another title. Home detention will not be opposed by the Opposition, but it was not recommended by the Starke committee. I have concerns about the families of these people, and the honourable member for Glen Waverley expressed considerable concerns. Mrs Hirsh interjected. Mrs WADE-I take up the interjection of the honourable member for Wantirna, who continues to make interjections and rude remarks but is not prepared to take it on the chin when it is dished out by others. In those circumstances she says it is sexist and calls for double standards to apply for women in this Chamber. I dissociate myself from that call, and I am sure, apart from the Deputy Premier, other women members of this Chamber would also dissociate themselves from it. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member should ignore interjections and keep her remarks to the Bill. Mr Micallef interjected. Mrs W ADE-The honourable member for Springvale is welcome to inspect my notes. They are not copious notes. As I said, I am concerned about the family who may have a violent son, or husband, or father in a situation where the family is asked to consent to the release of that person back into the household. As the honourable member for Glen Waverley said, it would be very difficult to refuse such a request. The family would have to agree to home detention in those circumstances and the family would be home with the person, who is unable to leave the house except to go to work. The family would be confined in the house when others are free to leave; that is a recipe for violence. The supervision of the prisoner on home detention will mean supervision for the family and will turn that family's home into a prison so that all members of the family, not just the member released on home detention, are subject to visits by officers of the Office of Corrections, to telephone calls checking up on whether the prisoner is at home and so on. Clause 11 is a transitional clause that relates to the change for a prisoner currently in prison from remission to merit time. In discussions with the Director-General of Corrections I suggested that the clause operated to double up on merit time for those prisoners. In other words, they would get their full remission and also receive merit time. I have now received a letter from the director-general, who says that it is generally agreed that proposed section 60B of the Bill does not operate to provide that the prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment will be credited only with the entitlement to remission for the period of imprisonment which he or she has already served, and, therefore, I am wrong in my claim that the Bill doubles up. However, the director­ general goes on to say that it was further agreed that the proposed section could be expressed in simpler and clearer terms without altering the effect of the provisions and that the government would put forward an amendment reflecting this change. The director-general provided a copy of that proposed amendment and I ask the Minister to peruse it because it seems still to suffer from the same defects as the 1714 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill original clause. The problem is with the words "with respect to the pot1ion of the sentence served before that commencement". My understanding of remission time is that it is automatic and comes into operation as soon as the prisoner goes into prison and that it does not relate to portion of a term of imprisonment. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that and respond to it during the Committee stage. The three volumes of the Starke committee report represent three years of work by a large number of people. The process involved hundreds of submissions from many individuals and organisations. It represents considerable consultation, but out of all that process, after three years and a three-volume report, a Bill is introduced that has absolutely no relationship to the recommendations of the Starke committee and the consultation and work of that committee has gone for nothing. The Bill is out of step with moves elsewhere in Australia and people in Victoria are even worse off than they were in 1985 when their confidence in the sentencing provisions was at a low ebb. Four years later and their confidence has completely ebbed away. Mr PERTON (Doncaster)-I refer the House to the so-called abolition of the remission system. The Opposition is concerned about the distribution of the sentencing power within Victoria. The sentencing process involves power in the hands of the judiciary, the legislature, the executive and the bureaucracy. The public has lost confidence in the administration ofjustice and in the ability of the judiciary to impose appropriate sentences. Time and again judges impose what appear to be reasonable sentences in respect of particular offences, yet prisoners appear to be on a revolving-door system. As anecdotal evidence of that, I once appeared in a criminal prosecution for a person who was on her sixth offence. She was sentenced to a mere six weeks imprisonment, but imagine my surprise when just three days later my client rang me to thank me for defending her and to say that she had already been released from prison by virtue of the remission system and other administrative procedures. Judges should hold the central role in the sentencing process. The system ofautomatic remission and administrative programs for early release undermines the position of judges in the system. This government may think that is good and that the executive oUght to hold primacy in the sentencing process and that Ministerial fiat or the process of Ministerial interference ought to hold sway in our system. Mr E. R. Smith-They don't help the victims! Mr PERTON-They may believe the bureaucracy and/or the organs of government ought to be able to make better decisions than do judges. In my opinion they are wrong. [n the Criminal Law Report 1974 an article by Mr D. A. Thomas entitled "Developments in Sentencing" states: Judges may lack some skills which would be considered essential to a sentence in a modem Utopia ... but it is jifficult to point to any body of persons better equipped to discharge the responsibility of sentenci~ in the present state of knowledge; and one skill which the modem judge is generally allowed to possess, and which is as fundamental to sentencing as to any other judicial function, is that of acting judicially. No member of an administrative sentencing tribunal would himself make inquiries about the individual offender and attempt a diagnosis; any such body would inevitably act on the basis of evidence produced by others. The assessment of evidence, the weighing of conflicting versions, the evaluation of opposing :::laims-holding the balance between the offender and society-will remain the key to sentencing in the foreseeable future, and it is this skill which is generally developed more fully in the judge than in any other professional, and a major justification for leaving sentencing authority where it lies at present. It is perceived by the public that remissions have reduced the effectiveness of the judicial decision-making process. In relation to the effect of remissions on sentences Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1715 imposed by judges, I cite from the best work in relation to sentencing in Australia, Sentencing-State and Federal Law in Victoria by Richard Fox and R. E. Freiberg, which has already been quoted by the honourable member for Mornington earlier in the debate. The learned authors in paragraph 9.221 of the volume stated: ... The policy of the Parole Board has been held to be irrelevant to both the quantum of the sentence and the decision whether a minimum term should be fixed. In Morgan and Morgan Mr Justice Jenkinson stated: If it were asserted, or even if it were proved that the date of release on parole of a particular offender, or of a particular class of offender, could in fact be predicted with confidence by reference to the probabilities disclosed by the statistical information about past practice in the exercise of the discretionary powers with respect to parole and remission, the courts would yet be right, in my opinion, to disregard the possibility that less than the sentence passed might be endured, by reason of the grant of remissions or by reason of release on parole. The liberty of the subject under the common law is not to be set at hazard upon a statistical probability, not curtailed in the expectation, no matter how well grounded, that an agent of the executive government or a parole board will choose to set him free before the law's sentence has run its course. In Yates the Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court went on to complain that the combination of parole, prerelease permits and remissions created an "elaborate charade" in that the sentencing judge knows that in all probability a person who is sentenced to imprisonment will not serve even the minimum term in gaol. As the honourable member for Glen Waverley rightly said, what confidence can the public have in this form of judicial process. At a public meeting held in the electorate of the honourable member for Glen Waverley, the public agreed with the honourable member about those matters. The Opposition believes the old system of remissions should be abolished. Certain portions of the Starke report oUght to be recorded in Hansard. Paragraph 18.4.24 states: Finally, as a matter of policy the committee believes that the remissions should be abolished because: It is incompatible with the notion of imprisonment being a sentence of last resort to allow it to be used for the purpose of enforcing the type of administrative infraction that is predominantly the subject of loss of remissions. The committee is opposed on principle for the reasons specified in chapter 4 to the continued existence of administrative discretion to interfere with the sentences imposed by courts. The continued use of administrative intervention to control prison population levels is unprincipled and masks the fundamental conceptual flaws in the existing sentencing process. As my colleague, the honourable member for Glen Waverley said, the public expects the sentences to fit the crime. The Starke committee addressed the assertion of the government and its bureaucracy that the abolition of the system of remission would lead to some uncontrollable increases in the prison population. Paragraph 18.4.26 states: No doubt those in the Office of Corrections would say "It is a very laudable aim, however, it is not a wit practical", and as a result they would not be prepared to give up remissions which they say is the only effective way they have of controlling prison population. The committee's response to that is simply that it believes that the recommendations that it has made will in fact have a significant impact on prison population problems if properly applied, but it can understand the concern of the Office of Corrections, and therefore would adopt a strategy of phasing in its abolition of remissions over a period of time, to give opportunity to monitor what is occurring and to ensure that the overall recommendations of the committee are having the desired impact ... A start must be made and there must be good will on both sides to achieve the necessary purpose, which is a more honest and open sentencing system that achieves a maximum effect in terms of reduction and control of crime, and does so in an efficient and economic manner. 1716 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

As each speaker from my party has already said in the debate, the government has been dishonest in its assertion that it is implementing the recommendations of the report. Superficially, the proposed legislation is attractive. Voltaire said in his Philosophical Dictionary: Let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing, and a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson. As I have indicated in my first speech in this place, I had the opportunity of examining the judicial system in the People's Republic of China. I visited two prisons in that country. China does not have a remission system. It has a system of sentencing which involves the prisoners in genuine rehabilitation and good works. Indeed, in one prison in Beijing, prisoners were required to spend 4 hours doing good work, 2 hours in education, and 2 hours in exercise or relaxation. If the prisoners in the Victorian system were genuinely engaged in some work, if they were genuinely receiving some education, the $35 000 a year that is spent on each prisoner would be better spent because we may produce a better citizen rather than a better criminal. Clause 11 in part proposes: "60. (1) Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, every prisoner to whom this Division applies who is serving a sentence of imprisonment is eligible to earn merit time on account of his or her- (a) good conduct while serving the sentence; and (b) industry in the performance of any work allocated to him or her while serving the sentence; and (c) taking part in a programme approved by the Director-General to the satisfaction ofthe Director­ General. The Minister's second-reading speech, states: To completely abolish any incentive for prisoners to behave would seriously compromise the capacity of prison administrators to maintain discipline and order. Therefore, in place of automatic remissions, the Bill provides for prisoners to earn merit time for good conduct and industry. Each month, prisoners' behaviour will be assessed by the officers responsible for their supervision, and only those who satisfy the criteria for good conduct and performance in industry or on an approved program will be granted the full amount of merit time. One would have to be a mug to believe that could happen under Victoria's present prison system. The suggested merit-time system suffers from much the same problems and, indeed, additional problems under the old system of remission. It is open to extreme subjectivity on the part of prison officers. It is open to genuine corruption. It is open to favouritism, toadyism and even to blackmail. It does not change the system for the better but for the worse. The report of the Starke Victorian Sentencing Committee 1988, volume 2, referred to the fact that more than 100 years ago a Royal Commission was conducted in Victoria in relation to penal and prison discipline. That Royal Commission considered the arguments against remission. The arguments presented to the Royal Commission are included in paragraph 18.4.16 of the committee report, and stated: On the other hand, it is argued that the remission system practically sets aside the judicial sentence passed upon the prisoner in open court, and substitutes for it a different sentence; that it is unfair to the judges to alter, by regulations, the sentences they have publicly pronounced; that criminals are confirmed in their evil practices by knowing that they will not actually have to undergo the punishment awarded them; that respect for the law is materially weakened when a criminal, who is known to have been sentenced to a lengthened term of imprisonment, is seen to be at large a considerable time before that term has expired ... Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1717

I have certainly known of such cases. The report continues: · .. that the practice of depriving judicial sentences of a large proportion of their weight tends directly to the increase of crime; that it is essential to the ends of justice that a clear distinction should be preserved between the sentence passed on a criminal and the nature of the discipline to which, by his subsequent conduct, he deserves to be subjected; that judges in some cases, in awarding punishment, take the remission regulations into account, and make the sentences proportionately longer than they otherwise would have done ... That provision does not apply in Victoria, certainly subsequent to the Yates decision. The Royal Commission then considered the further argument, which states: · .. and this circumstance naturally leaves the impression that the punishment awarded is unduly severe; that if, as is universally admitted, it be essential to the full efficiency of punishment that its infliction should be certain, the remission system acts injuriously on the criminal's mind, by adding to the chances of eluding detection and of escaping conviction, a doubt as to whether even when convicted, the sentence of the judge will really be carried out; that the fact that a convicted criminal may while under sentence escape a portion of his punishment, is of itself calculated to detract from its deterrent effect ... The next statement is most pointedly referred to: · .. and that the delegation of legislative power to the executive in the matter of punishing crime is vicious in principle. It is as though the Royal Commissioner of 100 years ago saw the proposals for reform in this Bill now before the House. Certainly those criticisms can be said to apply to the same reform contained in the Bill. A second matter to which I refer concerns the inclusion ofa definition of"confidential information" in section 30 of the Act; that provision is set out in clause 6. In the Minister's second-reading speech he asserted: The Bill also includes a more specific confidentiality provision for information relating to prison security and prisoner personal information. This provision has been included because the existing confidentiality provision has been found to be too general to have any real application. That is a strange assertion that ought to permit the Opposition to be suspicious of the motives of the government in including the new definition of "confidential information". The old definition was contained in section 30 (1) of the Corrections Act and states: "Confidential information" means information (including photographs, fingerprints, samples and results of tests) gained because ofa person's position. Section 30 (1) (2) of the Act provides: A person who holds or has held a position must not, except to the extent necessary to perform official duties powers or functions ... And the following is the important provision- · .. of that position, record, disclose, communicate or make use of confidential information. Section 30 (1) (3) sets out a number of exclusions in relation to subsection (2). The Legal and Constitutional Committee of Parliament is examining various questions relative to freedom of information. It has become clear as a result of evidence and submissions put to the committee that the government is trying to utilise a number of Qleans to reduce the flow of information from the bureaucracy to the public. That system involves the use of regulation. One of the sets of regulations is at present the subject of an appeal to the High Court of Australia, and another set of regulations is subject to decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Supreme Court. 1718 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

The government also seeks to keep documents from the public by the use of administrative and bureaucratic tactics which prevent members of the public being properly able to exercise their rights under the Freedom of Information Act. The third and most decisive means by which the government has attempted to reduce the performance of the Freedom of Information Act is through the use of statutory reform. It has managed, by statute, to exempt the Rural Finance Corporation and the State Bank, and it appears that it may attempt to do the same thing through other means. I can see no reason for this alteration of the definition. I am suspicious that the reason for the alteration to the definition of "confidential information" may be because of some belief on the part of the government that a strict reading of section 30 (2) may allow it to use the new definition to tighten its controls over the provision of documents to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. In that sense, I would not support the new definition. I believe matters such as this sort of statutory reform ought to be submitted to the Legal and Constitutional Committee as part of its function of examining the flow of information from the bureaucracy to the public, whether by way of reform of the Public Records Act or the Freedom of Information Act. It is not satisfactory for the government to tinker with these confidential or other information provisions in various Acts either, firstly, to defeat the examination and work of the Legal and Constitutional Committee or, secondly, perhaps deliberately to sidestep that work. The shadow Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the honourable member for Mornington, will have a number of amendments to put when the Bill is in the Committee stage, and I propose to support those amendments. Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte)-The glaring inadequacy of the Bill is that it creates a structure that appears to provide only for a tightening of penalties imposed on the growing number of criminal offences in Victorian society. Unfortunately, a close reading of the Bill shows that the structure is nothing but a hollow shell. One need look no further for an example than proposed new section 29A, which states: Prisoners may be tested for drug use "29A (1) Ifthe Governor considers it necessary to do so in the interests of the management, good order or security of the prison, he may at any time direct a prisoner to submit to tests to assess whether the prisoner is using a drug of addiction or a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. (2) Tests under sub-section (1)- (a) must be approved by the Director-General; and (b) may include the taking of samples of urine; and (c) must be carried out by an officer within the meaning of Part 5.". On the subject of drug testing, Sir John Starke's report noted that prison officers now do not interfere with drug taking in prisons because it causes trouble. On this basis, how can we honestly expect a prison governor, weighed down by the administrative burdens and paper war of his office, to run around taking urine tests? It is obvious that his officers will not. They will not do so because, just as many employers in this State are expected to cave in and do deals with trade unions, so too are prison officers reluctantly required to turn a blind eye to drug taking and other illegal offences in prisons because they all know that the government is soft and supportive of the powerful left-wing groups in our society. Corrections (Amendment) Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1719

We know and understand on this side of the House that showy mechanisms such as drug testing will never be utilised and are in fact paper tigers designed for nice press releases and to allay the genuine fear of the vast majority of Victorian citizens. Indeed, our citizens have a right to know the truth: that the Bill is mere window-dressing and that the revolving doors of our prisons will continue to chum offenders out as fast as they take them in. If the prisoners do not decide to leave by the revolving door that has been referred to tonight in debate, they can turn to proposed new section 26 of the Bill, which states: Escape and related offences 26. (1) In section 479B of the Crimes Act 1958, for Han offence and shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding five years" substitute Ha summary offence punishable on conviction by a penalty not exceeding 5 years imprisonment". Honourable members on this side of the House would love to see the word "exceeding" without the "not" preceding it. We would like to see a minimum prison sentence mentioned for once rather than "not exceeding", which all too often appears in the Bill. The shadow Minister fittingly referred to John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, in which political power is defined as: A right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property ... Although "property" is a dirty word on the other side of the House, property is the dream of and security for most honest, hard-working citizens. Yet in the suburbs of Melbourne at the moment our citizens are locking themselves in their homes behind bars while prisoners who should be behind bars wander free. Honourable members know only too well that when they go into the suburbs to meet their constituents they knock on doors and find that the constituents are standing behind locked, barred, and grilled security doors. They are not game to open their doors because they are afraid for their lives. Members of Parliament have to speak to them through the grilles. That is a great testimony to this Labor government because it is a development that has occurred only in the past five, six or seven years. Offenders who are finally locked up behind bars have often been wrongly convicted. Today's Sun has an article headed "Wards 'do time with offenders' ", which states: Ten State wards, aged 14 and 15, are locked up with juvenile offenders at the Turana Youth Training Centre. Only a small number ofthe wards have been convicted of offences. The centre is specifically for: youths on remand. youths 15 to 16 under sentence. offenders 17 to 21 waiting classification. Community Services Victoria sources have told the Sun about 100 youths are in the Parkville centre. The sources said Turana is designed for juvenile offenders and State wards and that youths who have not been charged should not be there. Turana is a detention centre with high security provisions. The wards are sent to Turana if a court believes they need care and protection or are at risk. Staff then assess whether the youths can be sent to a family home, a community residential unit or returned to their parents. But it can take months for the assessments to be carried out. 1720 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Corrections (Amendment) Bill

Such situations where innocent young people are placed in institutions with hardened criminals makes a mockery of Labor's social justice flummery. They also encourage a new education system in this State: enforced training courses at Turana in how to become a young criminal. It should come as no surprise to the Minister that honourable members on this side of the House mock his Bill just as much as we mock his commitment to his portfolio. Mr CRABB (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-At this stage of the night I respond briefly to some of the matters raised. I almost feel as though I have had a debate by proxy with Sir John Starke because every speaker tonight has quoted extensively from newspaper reports of what the good judge has said. It is a pity that no honourable member has rung Sir John for an original quotation. The same Age articles were trotted out by each speaker. Mr Perton-Not every one, I misssed out. Mr CRABB-Congratulations. The fact is that I had a long talk with Sir John Starke last year before the government announced Victoria Building a Law-Abiding Society-Together policy and Sir John was entirely in agreement with that policy and said so. I do not have an Age from which to quote but I assure the House that Sir John was in agreement with the terms of the policy. Sir John Starke seems to have missed reading my second-reading speech. I forgive him for that because second-reading speeches are not necessarily well-read documents. However, I would expect honourable members contributing to this debate to have at least given the second-reading speech a cursory glance along the way. I said in the second-reading speech that this measure is not the entirety of the government's response nor is it the entirety ofa policy position for intended legislation for Parliament. The Bill is some measure of the policy the government articulated before the election, which was endorsed in the election last October. The Bill provides for the abolition of the early release program and automatic remissions, the introduction of merit time and a staged reduction over five years in the rate of merit time, which accords not only with Sir John Starke's recommendations but the government's policy position. It also provides for increased penalties for prison offences and for enhanced prisoner work programs and it changes the sentencing terminology. The other matter to be dealt with in the sentencing reform package to be introduced to the House in the next Parliamentary session are: the establishment of the sentencing task force to review maximum penalties for serious offences; the development of a court sentencing manual; and the establishment of a bureau of crime statistics. It will also introduce changes to the penalties and sentencing legislation recommended by Sir John Starke in his report. The reason why the sentencing reform package is not being introduced in this session is that a fajrly substantial amount of work still has to be done and that is currently under way in a committee chaired by Mr Frank Costigan, QC. My colleague, the Attorney-General, will be introducing that proposed legislation in the next session of Parliament. This measure, combined with the measure to be introduced in the next session, will meet entirely the policy position the government put to the people last September before the election and with which Sir John Starke concurred at the time. There has been no change to the government's position on any of these matters since that time and the position with which Sir John Starke agreed then is exactly the position now. Wheat Marketing Bill 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1721

It is the exact position that will be implemented by this measure and the measure to be introduced in the next session of Parliament. The contributions of honourable members are better left to be dealt with in the Committee stage, not to mention that it is 11.50 p.m. and we are at the end of a rather long week. I am somewhat disappointed that neither the Opposition nor the National Party shed any light on their policy position on the matters covered by the Bill. There was a bit of criticism and a lot of repetition but the only glimmer of a policy position was a suggestion contained in a letter from an inmate of Pentridge Prison. The letter was received this morning by the honourable member for Glen Waverley who passed it on to his colleague, the honourable member for Mornington, who read it in all its glory. An Honourable Member-That's making policy on the run! Mr CRABB-It may be making policy on the run! Perhaps while the Bill is in the Committee stage a deeper insight will be given into the policy position of the Liberal Party. I look forward to the debate in Committee. The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time and committed. Clause 1 Progress was reported.

WHEAT MARKETING BILL Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the position of the Australian Wheat Board­ AWB-to operate within the domestic market for wheat in Victoria. The need for the proposed legislation flows from Commonwealth moves to give growers greater marketing choices for their grain by deregulating the domestic market for wheat, while retaining the wheat board's monopoly on all export sales. At the same time, the board's commercial and marketing flexibility will be enhanced to enable it to compete effectively on the domestic market. The Commonwealth proposals will give most wheat growers a greater range of options for marketing their grain and, therefore, the ability to capture directly any premiums accruing to grain of specific quality or qualities. The introduction of such competition for the purchase and sale of wheat will strengthen marketing efficiency and enhance the competitiveness of the wheat industry. The widened powers of the AWB will ensure that the board is an active and effective competitor in the domestic market and will establish a floor price for grain of nominated quality. Those growers wishing to minimise risk taking can still deliver their grain to either the AWB domestic or export pools and accept the average pool price for their grain. The Victorian government supports the Commonwealth initiatives in the marketing area. It believes that the AWB will continue to be the dominant force, and price setter, in such a deregulated environment. This dominance will be reinforced by its widened powers and, of course, by the continuing loyalty of growers built up over many years. However, while the Commonwealth clearly has the legislative power to make laws regarding the marketing of export and interstate wheat, it does not have the power to 1722 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Wheat Marketing Bill make laws concerning intrastate trade. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy referred to the necessity for complementary State legislation when addressing the Commonwealth Parliament on this matter. If the proposed Commonwealth wheat marketing legislation comes into operation, as expected, on 1 July 1989, the Victorian Wheat Marketing Act becomes inoperative from that date. Without complementary Victorian le~slation, the wheat board would not be able to engage in intrastate trade in wheat dehvered to the board after 1 July 1989. It would also mean that the board would not be able to enter into binding forward sale contracts with Victorian buyers such as local flour mills and stockfeed compounders. These intrastate operations account for some 20 per cent of the annual Victorian production. This Bill will give the Australian Wheat Board the same powers to purchase and sell wheat within Victoria as it has under the Commonwealth legislation for interstate and overseas trade. While the wheat board will also have the power to engage in intrastate trade in other grains, where such activities will assist in the marketing of wheat, barley subject to the Barley Marketing Act 1958 will be expressly excluded. The Bill also provides that the Commonwealth Minister, with the consent of the Victorian Minister, can direct the Australian Wheat Board on intrastate matters. There is also provision for the Victorian Minister to give independent directions to the board. The Bill does not make any changes to existing provisions dealing with the storage, handling and transport of wheat under the Transport Act 1983 and the Grain Elevators Act 1958. It is proposed that the Bill will be proclaimed to come into operation on 1 July 1989. Possible amendments to the proposed Commonwealth legislation, which may not be fully debated until after the conclusion of our current Parliamentary sessional period, are not expected to affect the operation of the Victorian legislation. The transitional arrangements between the old and new marketing arrangements are the same in both the Commonwealth and Victorian Bills. Growers still holding wheat from the 1988-89 season and wishing to deliver to the wheat board's 1988-89 pool must deliver that grain before 1 July 1989. These deliveries will receive the payments appropropriate to the 1988-89 pool. Wheat not delivered by 1 July will come under the new marketing arrangements in so far as growers will be free to market their grain to their best advantage, whether through the board or otherwise. Deliveries of 1988-89 wheat to the board after 1 July will come under the new marketing arrangements and will not be eligible for 1988-89 pool payments. The provisions of the present Bill will enable growers, and the AWB, to cooperate in the intrastate marketing of wheat, of sought after quality, to the grower's best advantage. Growers in the Mallee, who consistently produce high quality grain particularly suited to the flour milling trade, will be well placed to take advantage of the new arrangements. On a small scale, producers of soft quality low protein grain, suitable for the biscuit trade, will also be in a position to benefit from these arrangements. This Bill continues the long period of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the Victorian and other State governments in wheat marketing arrangements. Over a period of almost 40 years these arrangements have gone through a period of steady Adjournment 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1723 evolution with the implementation of each new arrangement representing a further advance for the wheat growing industry. The position of the Australian Wheat Board in the new arrangements contained in this Bill will further strengthen wheat marketing arrangements in Victoria and enable growers to access the wider market options that is the intent of the Commonwealth legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. On the motion ofMr AUSTIN (Ripon), the debate was adjourned. It was ordered-that the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 25 May.

ADJOURNMENT East Loddon P-12 school-Welding courses at Wangaratta TAFE college-Chelsea courthouse-WorkCare claims-Tax Help scheme-Victorian Investment Corporation-Frankston-Dandenong Road Mr ROPER (Minister for Planning and Environment)-I move: That the House do now adjourn. Mr JOHN (Bendigo East)-I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education concerning the East Loddon P-12 school in Serpentine Road, Dingee, which is in the heart of my electorate of Bendigo East. The East Loddon P-12 school has operated as a consolidated school for the past eleven years and offers students a first-class education from prep and primary level through to year 12 prior to students entering tertiary studies. Although the school operates as a consolidated primary and secondary school, it is designated as being two separate schools; it has a primary school working side by side with a separate secondary school. For many years the local school community, the local school council and staff of the school have endeavoured to persuade the government to recognise the structure as one P-12 school. I have previously had correspondence with the Minister urging her to officially recognise this school as a P-12 school. The first few years of its operation were an experiment, a new concept, but the time has come for decisions to be made, and the government must act. At present the primary and secondary schools operate under a memorandum of understanding which sets out the terms and conditions for staffing and teaching arrangements, together with the method by which the combined school is governed. I am aware that it does claim-and I acknowledge the claim-that the teacher unions have had to negotiate an industrial agreement before the official legal recognition or designation of the P-12 structure can occur. However, I emphasise that eleven years have passed. The first years were a trial period, and it has proven to be successful. Morale is very high at the school and high in the local school community, but if we do not act soon there will be a lot of disappointed people, which will lead to a drop in morale in the community and in the P-12 school. The school is a credit to those who run it-the two principals, the staff, the children and their families. There is tremendous pride in the local community and in the facilities that the school offers the students. Many of the facilities that the children and staff enjoy at the school have been provided by parents and families in the district on a voluntary basis in partnership with the State, and that is a good thing. 1724 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Adjournment

I am anxious that this not be put in jeopardy and that the Minister take this problem on board. I know that she is concerned about the matter; I have raised it with her both in correspondence and in personal conversation. I put it on record that the local community at Dingee and Prairie do want answers as quickly as possible. The council of the school is aware that secondary colleges, formed through the merger of high and technical schools under memoranda ofunderstandings have been established. The school council also noted that there are new primary career structures, and primary schools with secondary components were cleared to appoint a principal from either primary or post-primary sources, so the government has a precedent there. The government has procrastinated and given in to teacher union pressure. It must show leadership. It is a good school well supported by the community, and I urge the Minister to take action. Mr JASPER (Murray Valley)-I raise a matter with the Minister for Education in her capacity as representing in this House the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education. I refer to a particular course at the Wangaratta College of T AFE, and I preface my remarks by saying that the Minister will be aware that it is a fine college, which has developed over a number of years. An extensive amount of funds have been provided both by the State and Federal governments for developing the facilities at the college. More recently additional facilities have been opened at the college for electronic and building studies, and this has added to the courses which can be undertaken by various people. The issue of particular concern this evening relates to the provision of welding courses. In recent years a number of night courses have been provided not only to people who might use the course within their trade but also to those who just may be interested in improving their own talents. The college has found that not enough teachers have been available to provide for those looking to undertake welding courses in the evening. This has not been the case in the past. In 1988 a total of twenty people were not able to join the welding courses offered by the Wangaratta College of T AFE. However, this year more people are hoping to undertake these courses. Some 50 people are on the waiting list to enrol in a night welding course at the Wangaratta College of T AFE, and 20 others are on a waitin~ list at the Benalla campus, which, as the Minister will be aware, runs courses in conjunction with the Wangaratta College ofTAFE. It is unfortunate that this year the Wangaratta college does not have sufficient staff available to provide additional evening classes. Constituents of mine who are on that waiting list have approached me about the matter. I ask the Minister to investigate it before the start of the next school year. Extra finance must be made available. The State Training Board should consider providing additional funding so that the college can employ extra staff to teach the night classes. Recently I have had discussions with the acting director of the college, Mr Murray Johnson. Although he has sympathy for the people who want to undertake the night welding course, he says that there are not sufficient teachers available to conduct extra classes. I ask the Minister for Education to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education in another place for him to investigate whether the State Training Board can provide funding to employ additional staff at the college so that night classes can be extended for those people on the waiting list. I remind the Minister that there are 70 people-50 in Wangaratta and 20 in Benalla­ who want to undertake night courses. Attendance at such courses would improve their skills and enable them to become either better tradespersons or simply extend their knowledge in this area. Adjournment 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1725

Mr SANDON (Carrum)-I direct a matter to the attention of the Minister for Property and Services concerning the Chelsea courthouse, which has been vacant for some time. Because the number of courthouses was rationalised by the government, the Attorney-General considered that the Chelsea courthouse was no longer needed. The City of Chelsea is not well endowed with public buildings; the courthouse is one of the few public buildings in the city. Because of high levels of poverty, high numbers of single parents and an ageing population, the demonstrable need for programs and services in the area is being addressed by the government; but, as I said, there is little of the necessary infrastructure in the Carrum area. I should like to see the courthhouse used in conjunction with the services and programs the government is providing. Members of welfare groups and others have expressed their preparedness to work in the courthouse; and some innovative programs have been designed for its use. Innovative programs have been suggested by the local historical society. Young people in the area have also expressed their willingness to use the courthouse for the establishment of a food cooperative. The suggestions of both groups are of particular merit. The building could be used as a focus for many programs in the area. Mr Micallef interjected. Mr SANOON-I take up the interjection by the honourable member for Springvale: it would be good to see the courthouse used in a productive way. I ask the Minister for Property and Services to ensure that the building is not sold but rather used in the interests of local residents. In that regard I recommend the work done by Mr Frank Maguire, a member of the local historical society. All people interested in historical societies would be impressed by the work Mr Maguire does. He is a wonderful local resident and performs a magnicent role. It would be a real testament to the work of the historical society if we were able to ensure the building is preserved in the interests of the local community. I should like the Minister to ensure that the City of Chelsea is able to maintain and, indeed, protect and preserve the building for the local community. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-I direct a matter to the attention of the Treasurer. Unfortunately he is not in the Chamber. Only two Ministers are present, which is bad news considering the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting is the only chance honourable members have to raise these sorts of matters. The matter concerns WorkCare and relates specifically to a constituent of mine who lives in Maryborough. I raise the issue because it has wider implications than that and highlights some of the worst aspects of the disaster and tragedy surrounding WorkCare as we know it today. Mrs Marlene Rogers went off work in 1986, when she was working at the Maryborough knitting mills, with a nerve condition that affected both her arms. During the following three years there was a series of doctors visits including visits to specialists, as well as work efforts, work trials and many tribunal hearings. What is worrying is that there was an absolute lack of protection from the WorkCare system. There was a waste of money, red tape and frustration, and most frightening of all was the fact that most of the meetings were insulting and so frustrating that nobody could get anywhere. Despite the medical evidence that constantly went in Mrs Rogers' favour she was still requested time and again to appear before the W orkCare tribunal, both at Ballarat and at Melbourne. That in itself makes a nonsense of the whole exercise. Because her doctor was so concerned and so conscientious about the case, on many occasions he 1726 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Adjournment accompanied her and on two occasions had to spend all day in hearings in Melbourne. On one occasion the W orkCare barrister failed to turn up. The judge was very angry about that. Mr Micallef interjected. Mr AUSTIN-Why doesn't the honourable member for Springvale listen and shut up! The judge rang the barrister and said, "You be here in an hour". The barrister arrived in that time, but he knew nothing about the case, and it was adjourned. Mrs Rogers lives 200 kilometres away from Melbourne and, on these many occasions, she had a top barrister and her doctor with her. This involved taxi fares, meals and doctors fees, all of which were paid for by WorkCare. On another occasion, the barrister who arrived at the tribunal-- Mr MICALLEF (Springvale)-On a point of order, night after night I hear members of the Opposition bringing up issues and attacking WorkCare. The issue is that the claims agent who is responsible for processing the claim has not been named by the honourable member and, therefore, it is dishonest and a misrepresentation. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Springvale will resume his seat. He has not referred to any legitimate point of order. Unless he has a legitimate point of order, I will not hear him further. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-Mr Speaker-- Mr Micallef-What is the name of the claims agent? Mr AUSTIN-Mr Speaker, if we have to listen to idiots like that honourable member-- Mr MICALLEF (Springvale)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I take offence at the term used by the honourable member for Ripon. The SPEAKER-Order! I ask the honourable member for Ripon to withdraw the term to which the honourable member for Springvale has taken offence. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-I am pleased to withdraw, Mr Speaker. On another occasion the barrister was not briefed when the hearing was arranged. The judge was furious and said, "Appear, Mr Barrister, tomorrow morning". As a result of that, the WorkCare case was withdrawn in favour of Mrs Rogers. In all, she had 50 doctors visits and eleven tribunal hearings. All I ask, in the short time left to me because of the interruptions, is that the Treasurer examine this case because it affects not only Mrs Rogers; I am sure it affects many other people. Mrs GLEESON (Thomastown)-The matter I raise for the attention of the Minister for Community Services concerns a family counselling agency in my electorate, the Whittlesea Family Services Committee. The committee has a concern, inasmuch as it was willing to assist people with their taxation queries and also the State Taxation Office through a scheme called Tax Help. The Tax Help scheme involves the counselling agency going out and finding some volunteers who must then undertake training and work under the supervision of someone at the agency in counselling people about their tax problems or providing other assistance they may need. The Tax Help scheme is a very good scheme and should be encouraged. However, the Whittlesea Family Services Committee has found that it does not have the resources to be able to find volunteers to undertake the training sessions to enable them to assist people in filling out their tax forms and answering some of the minor questions. Adjournment 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1727

Of course, another difficulty in the Thomastown electorate is language. More than 30 languages are spoken in the electorate and it would be helpful for information of the scheme to be available in some of the major languages, but the committee has difficulty doing that. The Whittlesea Family Services Committee is a good agency; it is one of thirteen agencies that provide the Tax Help service operated throughout Victoria by the government. The scheme was first introduced by the Federal government, but funding was then withdrawn, and the State government picked it up. The family service is unique, and its emphasis is on counselling. Usually it offers limited counselling services. The Whittlesea service has a financial counsellor, but the Financial Counselling Association of Victoria has decided not to support the Tax Help scheme because it believes the work that is generated relates more to debt counselling than to taxation counselling, which is a true interpretation of the service's role. Of course, the service, which also has the counselling aspect, is picking up the Tax Help role and, to continue that scheme, great pressure would be placed on the 1· 5 counsellors of the service; it would make it impossible for them to carry out that role. I ask the Minister to take up the matter with the Taxation Office, not with a view to hinderin~ the scheme in any way, but to ask the office to provide some resources for the trainIng and ~therin~ together of volunteers. Of course, the service is in the best position ofknoWlng who In the communit), is available to volunteer, but in this highly ethnic area there is a need to have some dIScussions with some of the ethnic agencies. That is where the task is beyond the ability of the family service, which is responsible for 90 000 people in the area. I, therefore, ask the Minister to take up the matter. Mr CLARK (Balwyn)-I raise for the attention ofthe Treasurer the growing evidence that the Victorian Investment Corporation has deliberately spent $925000 of taxpayers money in covering up the impending collapse of ITC Software Ltd group in the run­ up to and the aftermath of the last State election. I call on the Treasurer to make a full public disclosure of what has taken place and to take appropriate action against any public servants involved, going to the top if necessary. ITC Software Ltd has been effectively controlled by VIC through officers and an appointee since December 1987. As at 30 June 1988 the group had accumulated losses of $22·635 million and the auditors had qualified its accounts saying it was only a going concern with the continuing support of the VIC. I remind the House that June last year was when Dr Peter Sheehan was offering the Victorian Economic Development Corporation $30 million to continue to keep it afloat and when, from the Premier's subsequent admission, it appears the government first became aware that the VEDC was facing losses of up to $60 million. From June last year the VIC started pumping additional funds into the company; firstly, up to $250000; then up to $400000; then up to $550000; and, finally, up to $925 000 by early November last year. Also in about June last year the ITC Software Ltd group apparently received an order worth $2·7 million to provide computer hardware and software from a mysterious company called Monsaldale Holdings Pty Ltd which had total shareholders funds of$100. That company told ITC Software Ltd that its business plans included building helicopters at a Geelong airport, making CD ROMs in Geelong, and establishing a computerised multilisting service for real estate agents. On the basis of this purported order from this $100 company, with these wild and wonderful plans, ITC Software Ltd was able to produce healthy looking budgets for a number of months which just happened to cover the run-up to and aftermath of the 1728 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Adjournment

State election. All this ended in early November when Monsaldale Holdings Pty Ltd simply walked away from the deal and left the ITC Software Ltd group with a worthless piece of paper from this $100 company. I should also point out the significance of early November. It was then that the government finally bit the bullet on the VEDC and VIC scandals and stopped its attempts to pretend that there was nothing going on. It was on 9 November that Fergus Ryan was finally appointed to conduct an inquiry into the VEDC. A number of employees of the ITC Software Ltd group have since told me they believe the Monsaldale order was a sham. If it were not a sham, the acceptance of it by ITC in those circumstances amounted to monumental incompetence. Immediately after the loss of the Monsaldale order, and again just before the group finally collapsed in December last year, the directors ofITC held numerous late-night exercises shredding enormous quantities of company documents, the nature of which were concealed from other ITC group employees. One employee is willing to swear on oath that William John Gleeson, who is now the secretary of the VIC, was one of those involved in the shredding. Finally, and most recently, at a meeting of creditors of the ITC group held on 21 April 1989, the following conversation was recorded-and I shall quote from the minutes which I am willing to make available to honourable members: Mr Cade questioned that in the light of the existing financial problems, what grounds were there to enter into a lease of an AS400 computer system, which was not cheap, two or three months before the company was to be wound up, and start hiring staff then. Mr Cousins advised that he could not respond. Mr Haffner asked Mr Cousins whether the last matter had anything to do with the elections. Mr Cousins advised that he had no comment to make. Mr Warren Duncan Cousins is one of the officers of the VIC who is a director oflTC Software Ltd. Why should a public servant say "No commenC' to such a question, when it should have been so easy to say "No", unless the elections clearly had something to do with what had gone on in the ITC Software Ltd group? It was an extraordinary thing to say. Again I call on the Treasurer to tell the public exactly what has gone on, and to take appropriate action against anyone who has been involved in using in excess of$900 000 of taxpayers money in concealing ITC Software Ltd's impending collapse for election purposes. Mr NORRIS (Dandenong)-In the absence of the Minister for Transport, I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, who is at the table, to take note of my remarks. A group of my constituents employed at the Beecham Research Laboratories on Frankston-Dandenong Road invited me to their workplace to meet the health and safety committee. I congratulate Beecham Research Laboratories for its excellent staff relations and the fact that it has an active health and safety committee. I had a long discussion with the staff about their fears concerning what they consider to be a dangerous stretch of road outside the factory. The laboratory is famous for Beecham pills, which, in the old days, were a guinea a box. Beecham Research Laboratories is now the largest manufacturer of antibiotics in the country. The employees are concerned about the stretch of Frankston-Dandenong Road outside the factory. They asked that the speed limit be reduced from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour. Following representations by me to the Road Traffic Authority, the speed limit was reduced. However, the main concern of the employees is the enormous increase in the number of factories in the side streets off Frankston-Dandenong Road. Adjournment 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1729

As honourable members will be aware, the growth in Dandenong is incredible; it is the fastest growing business-designated area in the State. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-The honourable member for Bendigo East asked me about the industrial negotiations on the East Loddon P-12 School, which is a good school. It has been patient in waiting for the resolution of this important issue. I am pleased to inform the honourable member that after some inquiries by me, being anxious to have the situation resolved, the working party has been reconvened. While I am not over hopeful of a hasty resolution, at least the matter is bein~ considered and I look forward to a resolution before the end of the year so that the posItion of principal and the career structure can be resolved in time for next year. The honourable member for Murray Valley asked me a question about the inability of Wangaratta to provide a welding course in the evening because of a shortage of staff. That is a matter for the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education, and I shall be pleased to raise it with him. Mr W ALSH (Minister for Property and Services)-The honourable member for Carrum requested that the Chelsea courthouse be made available to the Chelsea City Council for community use. The honourable member for Carrum takes a great interest in the community he represents, and I assure honourable members that my phone runs hot with requests from him for different buildings to be made available for community use. It is a credit to him that he is so involved in the community. If the courthouse is placed on the rationalistion list, I shall certainly be able to speak with the Chelsea City Council about the matter, and it may be able to purchase the courthouse at the Valuer-General's price or in another way. The honourable member is correct in what he says about courthouses throughout Victoria. They are generally of good structure and work can be done to make them fit for community use, providing the department can purchase the buildings at the right price. Mr SPYKER (Minister for Community Services)-The honourable member for Thomastown raised an issue of importance in her electorate concerning many of the young families in that fast-growing area. It clearly indicates again that the honourable member has been busy representing her constituents. The honourable member emphasised the need for a taxation support scheme to provide assistance for constituents in her electorate. The honourable member said that the Financial Counsellors Association of Victoria does provide taxation and other financial assistance, but is not in the business of providing taxation and financial advice on a yearly basis. I assure the honourable member that I shall take up that issue with the Australian Taxation Office so that the constituents in her electorate can be provided with the appropriate service. There is a need to train people at the local level so that the local community can have a service upon which they can rely. I congratulate the honourable member on her initiative and vigilance, which again prove that she is one of the most able representatives in this place. Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-The honourable member for Ripon raised for the attention of the Treasurer a WorkCare claim. I shall refer that matter to the Treasurer and I ask the honourable member to provide further information concerning the names of the claims agent and the doctor, particularly, as the issue involves approximately 50 doctor visits.

Session 1989-56 1730 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Adjournment

The honourable member for Balwyn also raised for the attention of the Treasurer matters involving the Victorian Investment Corporation. I shall direct those matters to the Treasurer. Honourable members were bemused by the conclusion drawn from the information articulated by the honourable member, and if he had serious claims to make he should have forwarded them earlier to the appropriate authorities and sought some legal response, perhaps from the police. The honourable member for Dandenong raised for the attention of the Minister for Transport representations from employees of Beecham Research Laboratories and their claim about the dangerous nature of a stretch of road outside the factory site. The government recognises the increase in use of the Frankston-Dandenong Road and the representations of the honourable member, and I shall ask the Minister for Transport to investigate the claims. The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.39 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, May 23. Questions on Notice 9 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1731

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Thefollowing answers to questions on notice were circulated-

ETHNIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS IN RESERVOIR ELECTORATE (Question No. 113) Mr SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: In respect of the electoral district of Reservoir: 1. What programs funded and administered by the department have been delivered in this district since 1981, indicating-(i) in what financial year the programs were first funded; and (ii) the capital and recurrent funds which have been made available in each program, respectively, in each financial year since 1981? 2. What proportion of total State funds have been allocated to this district for each financial year since 1981? Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Ethnic Affairs)-The answer is: The time and resources necessary to answer this question cannot be justified. The Ethnic Affairs Commission does not maintain records of expenditure on a local area basis.

MIGRANT WORKERS CENTRES (Question No. 168) Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) asked the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: 1. What action, if any, the government has taken to-(a) provide resources and support for migrant workers centres, (b) provide an overseas exchange program for trade unionists and shop stewards to study overseas working conditions; and (c) examine whether discrimination occurs against migrants whose overseas professional or trade qualifications may not be accepted in Victoria? 2. What action, if any, the government has taken in 1987 and 1988 to provide resources and support for migrant workers centres, indicating-(a) the location of such centres; (b) the personnel involved at each centre; and (c) the date of establishment of each centre? Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Ethnic Affairs)-The answer is: 1. (a) The Ethnic Affairs Commission has provided the following amounts to the Trade Union Migrant Workers Centre under its grants program: 1987-1988-$12000 1986-1987-$10 000 1985-1986-$10 000 (b) The commission has taken no action to provide an overseas exchange program for trade unionists and shop stewards to study overseas working conditions. (c) Two specific measures have been taken: (i) In 1989 the government established an overseas qualification unit in the Department of Labour. (ii) The Victorian government has supported the study of the recognition of overseas qualifications commissioned by the Commonwealth-States research program. 2. Under the grants program the following amounts have been granted to the Trade Union Migrant Workers Centre in 1987 and 1988: 1987-1988-$12000 1986-1987-$10 000 1732 ASSEMBLY 9 May 1989 Questions on Notice

(a) The Trade Union Migrant Workers Centre is based at 174 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne. (b) The Trade Union Migrant Workers Centre has two members of staff-Jorge Torrico and Roberto Esposto. (c) The Trade Union Migrant Workers Centre was established in 1978.

ENROLMENTS IN PRIVATE AND STATE SCHOOLS (Question No. 177) Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) asked the Minister for Education: In respect of each of the years 1987 and 1988: 1. How many students were enrolled in private primary and secondary schools, respectively? 2. How many students were enrolled in State primary and secondary schools respectively? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-The answer is: 1. Private primary and secondary enrolments for the year 1987 were, respectively, 124660 and 128088. Private primary and secondary enrolments for the year 1988 were, respectively, 126095 and 129772. 2. State primary and secondary enrolments for the year 1987 were, respectively, 292 702 and 244 228. State primary and secondary enrolments for the year 1988 were, respectively, 291 354 and 217067. Questions on Notice 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1733

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated:

SMOKING BANS ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT (Question No. 101) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Transport: 1. Whether he is aware that rail travel with V/Line is the only form of public transport in Victoria on which smoking is still permitted? 2. Whether he will inform the House why smoking is permitted on V/Line passenger services but is banned on other State transport services, and on all domestic aircraft services? 3. Whether it is proposed to ban smoking on all V/Line passenger services; if so, when? Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-The answer is: As you are aware V/Line has progressively implemented a policy of no-smoking on its passenger services. Smoking has not been permitted on V/Line road coaches or first-class rail carriages since December 1986. From Monday, 3 April 1989 smoking was banned on all V/Line intrastate rail passenger services. Dedicated non-smoking sleeping and sitting cars are provided on interstate trains between Melbourne and Sydney and Melbourne and Adelaide. The issue of extending the smoking ban on interstate services is being further considered by the joint operators-V/Line and State Rail Authority of New South Wales and V/Line and Australian National respectively.

GEELONG-BARWON BRIDGE (Question No. 204) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Transport: 1. Whether he will advise the expected completion date for construction of the Geelong-Barwon bridge, indicating how these differ from the dates originally proposed? 2. What action the government has taken to settle the contractor/union dispute since Southgate 1988? 3. Whether Lewis Construction Co. Pty Ltd will continue the project; if so-(a) when; and (b) at what additional contracted cost to the people of Victoria? Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-The answer is: 1. Industrial disputes on the site have now been resolved and work commenced on the project on 3 May 1989. The outstanding work is estimated to take twelve months to complete with a completion date mid-1990 compared with the original completion date of December 1988. 2. The Road Construction Authority granted the contractor, Lewis Construction Co., a five-month suspension of the contract to enable the contractor to fulfil contractual obligations and resolve industrial matters on site. During this period no significant progress was achieved. Facilitators were appointed by the Minister for Transport to help the parties bring about a resolution of the matter. The negotiations promoted by the facilitators enabled the issues to be resolved resulting in the recommencement of work. 3. The project will be completed by the original contractor, Lewis Construction Co. Under current negotiations it is anticipated that losses due to the industrial problems on the site including additional 1734 ASSEMBLY 11 May 1989 Questions on Notice costs to recommence the project will be shared between the contractor and the Road Construction Authority.

SCHOOL CATEGORIES (Question No. 179) Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) asked the Minister for Education: What the total number of schools was in Victoria as at February 1987 and 1989, respectively, indicating the number in each of the following categories-(a) State primary; (b) State secondary; (c) State special; (d) other primary; (e) other secondary; if) other special; and (g) any other classification? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-The answer is: The total number of schools in Victoria as at February 1987 and 1989 was:

1987 1989

State Primary 1588 1566 Secondary 396 385 Primary-Secondary 20 15 Special 86 93 Other Primary 435 442 (non-government) Secondary 117 117 Primary-Secondary 109 104 Special 15 16

MAINTENANCE OF WILLIAMSTOWN SCHOOLS (Question No. 182) Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) asked the Minister for Education: Which State schools in the electoral district ofWilliamstown have undergone cyclic maintenance in the past six years, indicating the cost of such maintenance at each school? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-The answer is: The following State schools in the electoral district of Williamstown have received cyclic maintenance in the past six years:

School Project Cost

$ Altona East Primary School Cyclic maintenance and site works 172856 Altona North High School Cyclic maintenance 546400 Altona North Primary School Cyclic maintenance 171040 Altona Primary School Cyclic maintenance 37 187 Newport West Primary School Cyclic maintenance and site works 352598 Point Gellibrand Girls High School Cyclic maintenance 80580 Seaholme Primary School Cyclic maintenance 68 150 Williamstown North Primary School Cyclic maintenance and upgrade of 1489400 facilities Williamstown Technical School Internal and external painting and repairs 368590 Questions on Notice 11 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1735

OVERLOADING OF SCHOOL BUSES (Question No. 199) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Education: I. How many reports the Geelong regional office has received relating to school bus overloading since the start of the 1989 school year? 2. What action, if any, is being taken to provide additional buses to ensure the safe passage of school children to these schools within the Geelong region? 3. Whether she will call for and examine Road Traffic Authority inspection reports applicable to school buses and take the necessary action to ensure the safe running of buses and the observance ofload limits? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-The answer is: 1. The Barwon-South Western regional office has received reports on overcrowding on school contract buses serving Lara, Meredith and Grovedale. 2. Additional buses have been approved for both Lara and Meredith. The Grovedale problem can be solved by altering arrangements on existing services. 3. Any reports received from the Road Traffic Authority relating to bus safety will be examined and appropriate action taken.

BELMONT- TORQUAY HIGHWAY (Question No. 201) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Transport: I. Whether he will investigate the reclassification, upgrading and construction of the Belmont-Torquay Highway to cater for additional holiday loads and the needs of the commercial interests at Torquay, which have expanded? 2. Whether construction of a dual carriageway is planned, having regard to the heavy traffic volumes in this region; if so, when will construction be commenced and completed? Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-The answer is: 1. Belmont-Torquay main road, known locally as Torquay Road, is currently a declared main road. It is a candidate for reclassification to State highway category as part of the Statewide review of road classifications. The reclassification will be the subject of discussions between the Road Construction Authority and the municipalities of South Barwon and Barrabool in the next two to three months. 2. Duplication of Torquay Road has taken place within the Geelong urban area and, more recently, in Torquay. Duplication within Torquay is expected to be completed in 1989-90 with a likely allocation of approximately $400 000. Further duplication works are then likely to proceed in the Geelong urban area, at Grovedale to Boundary Road, during 1991 and 1992. Further upgrading beyond these works will be considered on a needs basis relative to other regional and State needs.

Photographing ofProceedings 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1737

Tuesday, 23 May 1989

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 2.5 p.m. and read the prayer.

PHOTOGRAPHING OF PROCEEDINGS The SPEAKER-Order! I advise honourable members that I have given permission for the Age newspaper to take still photographs during question time today. No additional lighting or flashlights will be used.

LEADERSHIP OF LIBERAL PARTY Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I wish to advise the House that today, as a result ofa meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, I was elected to the position of Leader. My colleague and friend, the honourable member for Bennettswood, has been elected to the position of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. There will be no change in the composition of the shadow Ministry this week. However, I shall be announcing changes to the frontbench next week.

DEATH OF CHARLES MUTTON, ESQUIRE Mr CAIN (Premier)-I move: That this House expresses its sincere sorrow at the death of Charles Mutton, Esquire, and places on record its acknowledgment of the valuable services rendered by him to the Parliament and the people of Victoria as member of the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district ofCoburg from 1940 to 1967. The death of Charles Mutton on Saturday, 13 May, represents a sad loss to all who knew him and to Victorian politics, in a most interesting era. I suppose, in a sense, it represents the end of an era, as I am sure he must be the last of those who survived the turbulent 1940s. I have heard descriptions of Charles Mutton such as "colourful", "controversial" and "fiercely determined" and those descriptions aptly applied to Charles Mutton both as a politician and as a man. In the strict sense of the word, he has been unique in Victorian politics in that he was able to be elected to Parliament and re-elected for a considerable period as an independent. Charles Mutton was born in North Melbourne in September 1890; and he was one of a large family of eight children. He left school on his thirteenth birthday to take up a job at the Excelsior Barbed Wire and Nail Works, and worked for the sum of six shillings a week. Of course, those times, following the depression of the 1890s, were very tough. Charlie Mutton would supplement his income in those years by doing morning and evening paper rounds. He was self-educated, as so many of his time were and, again like so many of that era, he had a voracious appetite for reading. At the age of nineteen years he went to work in a piggery in Coburg but after two years he returned to the metal trades where he stayed until he took over the family farm when his father died at the height of the depression. He was one who always had an interest in industry and in politics and in progress associations. He was a member of the Iron Founders Union for many years. He had been a member of the Coburg branch of the Australian Labor Party since 1908; he had 1738 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Death ofCharles Mutton, Esquire been a union representative at political conferences for several years when the first world war broke out; and he initiated the establishment of a new Labor Party branch in Fawkner in 1917. His years in the metal trades exposed him to the conflicts of the time between labour and management. He was first involved in elected government in 1925 as a member of the Broadmeadows Shire Council. He became the shire's first councillor elected on a Labor Party ticket and remained on the council for some 28 years before resigning to take on his Parliamentary duties. He was selfless by nature and had a clear and direct empathy with those who struggled through the depression. It was not unusual, so reports indicate, for him to pay membership fees to various unions and other organisations for Labor stalwarts when they were unable to pay the fees themselves. Charles Mutton was first elected to this Chamber on 13 July 1940. He had been an unsuccessful candidate for Parliamentary office for the seat of Bulla and Dalhousie on three previous occasions. He was elected at a time when the Labor Party was deeply divided. As I understand the position, he was elected by the locals in defiance of the party machine. When he was elected, he threw himself into the affairs of the electorate to ensure that he was re-elected. He continued to beat the party machine election after election because of his capacity to do the types of things that a local member can and must do to win local support. Anyone with a problem went to his home; it was not uncommon for his lounge room to be full of people with real problems of survival. Charlie Mutton was a strong and determined man but he had a sense of humour. It was reported in an interview many years ago that he declared that he had never had a drink or a smoke but had backed racehorses since he was a child. He said he got arthritis because he had tom up so many bookmakers tickets over the years. Among his many achievements in the local community was to take part in the setting up of the Coburg Housing Cooperative. He played a major role in attracting the then Housing Commission-established in the 1930s-into the northern suburbs, particularly the electorate he represented. He was involved in the establishment of the then State College of Victoria at Coburg, the Newlands Primary School and the Bellarine Street Home ofthe Helpin~ Hand Association. Charles Mutton was a constant protagonist of Pentridge Prison. HIS protestations about the presence of that bastille in his electorate became legendary and continued throughout his political career. In this Chamber, Charlie Mutton was an Independent Labor Party man, but he always voted with a Labor government believing that that was what he had to do, apart from doing anything else, to ensure his re-election. He always described himself as a Labor person. He regarded his conflicts with the then Central -Executive of the Labor Party as being peripheral to his commitment and service as a Labor person. He retired from Parliament on 19 March 1967 after some 27 years as a member of this Chamber. From 1961 to 1967 he was a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and his death is a sad loss. As I said, it is the end of an era; it is a record of a distinguished and long career in public life in this State. I extend the sympathy of members of the government to the family and friends of Charles Mutton. Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-On behalf of the Opposition I join with the Premier in expressing the sympathy of the House to the family of Charles Mutton. He was first elected to State Parliament in 1940 as the honourable member for Coburg. His interest in politics, I understand, started at an early age. I am informed that as a young boy he would ride his bicycle twice a day from Fawkner into the city to bring home to his father the news of election results. Death o/Charles Mutton, Esquire 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1739

When he left school his life was basically one of politics. He claimed that his one interest in life was to be a Labor man, and his Bible was the 1916 Australian Labor Party Constitution. He joined the ALP in 1908 aged only eighteen years. In 1917, at the age of27 years, he founded the Fawkner branch of the Australian Labor Party and from 1917 to 1940 served continuously as either the secretary or president of that branch. I am told he recalled often that, during the depression, he paid the membership fees out of his own pocket for those who could not afford to do so, in order to keep the branch in existence. I am sure the Labor Party today would like to see many more such men in its ranks to continue such a valiant effort on behalf of the party. Charles Mutton served for quite some time in local government. In 1925 he was the first Labor man on the Broadmeadows council. He held that position for 28 years and was elected president in 1935. Therefore, like his Parliamentary service, to serve with local government for nearly 30 years is no mean feat. With respect to union affiliations, I am advised that in the early days he worked in the metal trades, learning just how tough life could be. I am further informed that this played a large part in shaping his attitudes and leading him into public life. I might say that in that regard he was not dissimilar to me. He was an ironworker with John Payne and Sons from 1911 to 1930 and later became President of the former Iron Founders Union. His role in State Parliament was, as many honourable members would know, varied indeed. Soon after being elected, he proposed the abolition of State Parliament in the interests of a broader outlook for Australia. I am advised he was unsuccessful in his endeavours in that regard. I am sure all present honourable members would be rather relieved that that was the outcome! This, as well as another incident which I direct to the attention of the House, attracted much media attention at the time. Charles Mutton created uproar in Parliament by removing his coat to reveal what he referred to as a "bitzer shirt". Because of war time clothing shortages, the shirt comprised high quality material for the collar and cuffs and poor quality material for the rest. Some might make the observation that not much has changed in some ways. There are some 1500 entries in H ansard of his speeches and questions, including the 61 times he raised the question of removing Pentridge Prison from Coburg. This, in fact, was the context of his first question in the House in 1940, and his last question in 1967 was on the same issue. After a sixteen-year expulsion from the Labor Party-he had won Coburg as an Independent Labor member in 1940-he was readmitted to the party in 1956, having captured 5()'82 per cent of the vote in 1943. As honourable members would be well aware, for an Independent to be able to capture that percentage of the vote showed the standing he had in his local community. It is a fact that he had built up a strong local base of support and was known as a very dedicated local member. As the Premier said, Charles Mutton retired from Parliament in April 1967 at the age of77. In the wider community, Charles Mutton assisted in setting up the Coburg Housing Cooperative and played an active role in attracting the former Housing Commission to the northern suburbs. He also worked towards the establishment of the then State College of Victoria at Coburg. Charles Mutton regarded himself as a "battler for the battlers". He once described himself as a "bread and dripping man", one who knew all about hard times. I would agree from what I have been able to establish of his life and work in the community 1740 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Death ofCharles Mutton, Esquire that he could be described as a man of the people. His interests included racing and cycling. As the Premier said, he claimed the arthritic condition in his hand was due to the constant ripping up of many bookmakers tickets over a long period. He was a champion cyclist whose 1911 record time from Craigieburn to Donnybrook and return on a fixed gear cycle still stands. Charles Mutton was regarded as unique in Coburg and, in fact, in Victorian politics. Few people would be known as well in the area. As I said, I would describe him as a man of the people. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend our condolences and sympathies to the family of Charles Mutton. Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-I join the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in the condolence motion for Charles Mutton. He was born on 14 September 1890. He was an ironworker and a poultry farmer. He had an interesting background, being one of the rare people in this place to hold a seat successfully for many years as an Independent. He obviously did that with great support from his electorate. He was concerned with many local issues and was successfully involved in many local organisations. Charles Mutton was educated at St Mary's and St Francis's. He worked with the Excelsior Barbed Wire and Nail Works between 1903 and 1910. He also did morning and evening newspaper rounds. He worked at a North Coburg piggery. He was an ironworker with John Payne and Sons and, on his father's death in 1930, took over the Fawkner poultry farm. He was President of the Iron Founders Union and he was active in many local organisations, including the Coburg Cycling Qub, and he was a horseracing enthusiast. His background was not one of any form of privilege. He educated himself. One of the stories of his early life is that during a ferocious drought in 1930 he spent long days from sun-up until after dark obtaining water for the household which had to be carted from a pipe at the local convent. The water cost 6 pence for 200 gallons-about a week's supply-but the cartage cost was 3 shillings. If that existence was not hard enough to toughen up a thirteen-year-old he also had memories of his father being a strict disciplinarian. His father would not allow him to read the sports pages until he had read all the leading articles in the newspaper. It is also interesting to note the attitude that drove young Charlie. He read everything he could get his hands on, especially dictionaries, until he became a classic example of a self-educated man. He was a champion sportsman and in 1914 he set a record time from Craigieburn to Donnybrook and return on a fixed gear cycle. His record still stands today. Charlie used to cycle from Fawkner to Broadmeadows"to attend various council meetings. He was a member of the Broadmeadows council from 1925 until 1953 and was its president in 1934-35 and 1947-48. He left Parliament after some 26 years. He truly represented the workers of the State and had a stron~ affection for them and an understanding of their needs. It is a tribute to him that hiS enthusiasm enabled him to carry his causes into Parliament. The National Party joins with the government and the Opposition in extending condolences to the family of Charlie Mutton. Mr GAVIN (Coburg)-I pay my respects to the late Charlie Mutton, who served in the Legislative Assembly for the seat of Coburg for 27 years. He was a controversial figure in the 1940 era and was the second member for Coburg, the seat of Coburg having been created after a redistribution in 1926. Death o/Charles Mutton, Esquire 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1741

He was born in 1890 and he started work at the age of thirteen years and was paid 6 shillings a week for a 48-hour week at Excelsior Barbed Wire and Nail Works. Because Charlie Mutton was a champion cyclist, he supplemented and in fact earned more income by delivering the Age in the morning and the Herald in the afternoon. Many people said it was easy for him because he was a champion cyclist, he did not smoke and he had won many races for the Coburg Cycling Club. Later he became an ironworker at John Payne and Sons, Victoria Street, Melbourne, where he quickly became a shop steward and soon after he became a member of the State executive of the Iron Founders Union. He was president on four separate occasions of this union which was the precursor to the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. Like John Ducker, Australia's most famous ironworker, he had the habit of referring to everyone as "brother" irrespective of rank or position. He first tasted social action in 1906 when he joined the Fawkner Progress Association when campaigning to have the cemetery situated in Craigieburn and not in Fawkner. The battle was lost because Fawkner got the cemetery, which is situated opposite where I live, and it is where Charlie was buried last Wednesday. Charlie Mutton joined the ALP in 1908 in Coburg and he started the Fawkner branch in 1917. He was the first endorsed Labor Party member elected to the Broadmeadows council. He won in 1925 on his second attempt and served as a councillor for 28 years for the Campbellfield riding and claimed never to have missed a meeting during those 28 years. He was shire president on two occasions, in 1934-35 and 1947-48. Because of his role as a councillor he was asked to be the Labor Party candidate for the seat of Bulla and Dalhousie. He stood on three separate occasions in the 1935, 1937 and 1940 State elections. He narrowly lost the seat in 1940. Outside politics he was interested in cycling, his family and gambling, to which the Premier referred earlier. It is true he was able to buy his house in 1926 after two big wins on horses in 1925 and 1926. He won the seat of Coburg in a by-election in July 1940 when Coburg was divided on issues concerning Catholicism versus communism. Everyone anticipated the death of Frank Keane who was the then honourable member for Coburg. Frank Keane died in May 1940 after the State election. At the preselection for a candidate there was a bitter battle. Meetings were cancelled because of a number of irregularities. A number of the branches met in secret so that no-one could attend who was not of the same politics. There was the problem of branch stacking and on one occasion James Shorten, a Pentridge Prison warder, presented a list of 108 new members to join the Coburg branch. Because of the number of irregularities the preselection was called off and it was decided that preselection would be held by the executive. Nineteen candidates fronted the executive at the time. Roy Cameron, a 26-year-old, won preselection by seventeen to five over Jock Hay. Charlie was a candidate. On the tram on the way home after the preselection meeting the other candidates discussed running someone other than the endorsed candidate. They expressed concern about the candidate not being a local person. They all opposed the executive holding the preselection as they wanted the locals to have a say in the preselection. It was decided that Charlie Mutton would run as an Independent candidate because he had been shire president and had stood on three other occasions for the seat of Bulla and Dalhousie. 1742 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Death ofCharles Mutton, Esquire

Charlie Mutton pitched himself into a bitter election campaign. It is history that the then Labor Leader, John Cain senior did not endear himself to Charlie Mutton or his supporters. John Cain senior made a speech at the Coburg Town Hall but he was not able to complete it because of the uproar. A number of scuffles broke out and punches were thrown. Charlie Mutton spent 18 pounds on his campaign as the Independent Labor candidate. He used that money running street-corner meetings. He used a bell to get a crowd along. He emphasised that he was a well-known local man. Charlie was successful, and that may be attributed to the fact that his how-to-vote card was very similar to that of the Labor Party. It was of the same design and colour, and it placed a big emphasis on the word "Labor". His opponent in that election polled 39 per cent; Charlie polled 32 per cent; and the Country United Australia Party candidate polled 28 per cent. Therefore, Charlie won the seat on preferences, and he entered State Parliament at the age of 50 years. An article in the Herald of 15 July 1940 describes his win as: ... a revolt by Coburg electors against the dictatorship of the Central Executive of the ALP. The consequence of Charlie's win was that he was expelled from the Labor Party, as were all his supporters. Very soon afterwards, because Charlie Mutton still want~d to stay in the Labor Party, he called a public meeting at the Princess Theatre in April 1941, which attracted an attendance of 1200 people. The principle of that public meeting was that the locals should have a say in preselections of candidates for both the Upper and Lower Houses, and the meeting was widely reported in the daily newspapers at the time. Charlie was fortunate politically in that, in the year after he was expelled from the Labor Party, the Federal member was also expelled. His name was Maurice Blackbum, and he was a famous lawyer who had been the Speaker in this Parliament and was subsequently the Labor member for the Federal seat of Bourke. He was expelled in October 1941 for the second and last time because of his membership of the Australian Soviet Friendship League. Blackburn and Mutton together formed the Labor Supporters Committee, which developed into a very formidable local machine. They later registered a party under the Companies Act, the Blackbum and Mutton Labor Party, which held monthly meetings at the Coburg Labor Hall in Sheffield Street, Coburg. They had been granted use of the Labor Hall as a result of a court case that the Blackburn and Mutton Labor Party had won. That party had as its president a fellow called Martin Hannah, who was a former Independent member of the Legislative Assembly for the then electorate of Collingwood. The secretary of the party was Harold Nicholls. Maurice Blackburn was defeated in the 1943 Federal election, but in 1946 his wife Doris won as an Independent Labor candidate the Federal House of Representatives seat of Bourke. In the meantime, Maurice Blackburn had died. Therefore, that was the second occasion in ten years that an Independent Labor candidate represented the area in Federal politics. Only on one occasion in his sixteen years as an Independent did Charlie Mutton vote against the Labor Party. That was in 1942 when it was proposed that there be fair and equitable electoral redistribution. At the time, the Labor Party supported the then Country Party government against the proposal for a redistribution, even though there had not been an electoral redistribution since 1926-sixteen years previously. Therefore, when Charlie was readmitted to the Labor Party, mention was made of the fact that on the only occasion on which Charlie had opposed the Labor Party he was right and the Labor Party was wrong. Death o/Charles Mutton, Esquire 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1743

Charlie was readmitted to the Labor Party at the State conference in 1956. Ironically, Roy Cameron, the Labor Party candidate whom Charlie had defeated in 1940, was in the chair as State president; the conference granted Charlie enough credit in continuity of membership to enable him to stand for preselection as a candidate for the Labor Party. He was a member of the Labor Party until his death. He was a member of the Fawkner branch from 1917 to 1940 and from 1956 to 1989. As a Parliamentarian, Charlie spent sixteen years as an Independent Labor member and eleven years as a member of the Labor Party. It is notable that he raised the issue of the removal of Pentridge Prison from Coburg 61 times. In the 1943 State election, he won 50-8 per cent of the vote as an Independent Labor candidate; Labor won 20 per cent, and there were three other candidates. In 1945, he won 52-1 per cent; Labor won 25 per cent. As an Independent Labor candidate, he was able to win 50 per cent of the vote on numerous occasions and was, therefore, regarded as invincible on his home turf. The Argus of 20 October 1945 reports: Coburg politically may be described as a Labor stronghold with an Independent air. Charlie's long service as a local councillor spanned 28 years. He served as a councillor for fifteen years before he became a member of Parliament. I believe that service helped him as an Independent member of Parliament. He enlarged his role as a local councillor and applied it to the broader scene of State politics. He addressed himself to parish-pump issues-those affecting the local people-and that was clearly his greatest political asset. Charlie Mutton was a justice of the peace and was well acquainted with the local people and local issues. As honourable members may discern from his life, he had three fundamental issues in which he believed. The first was the right of local people to have a say in the selection of their members of Parliament; the second was regular and fair redistribution of boundaries of electorates; and the third was that branches of political parties not meet in secret but be open to the public. It is a pity that he had to leave the Australian Labor Party for sixteen years because of those principles. Charlie Mutton referred to himself as a "bread and dripping man" because he came from a relatively deprived area. Although the Australian Labor Party will have many representatives who come from deprived backgrounds, I doubt that it will ever have a representative who can say that he is a "bread and dripping man". I extend my sympathies to Charlie's wife, Clarice, and to his family. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-I did not realise until I entered the Chamber today that Charles Mutton had passed away. I express my regrets to his family because I was associated with Charlie for three years when I first entered Parliament as a young man. I was a fan of Charlie Mutton. He sat in the opposite corner, where the honourable member for Gippsland South now sits. He had a keen sense of humour and reminded me of the former Speaker, the Honourable C. T. Edmunds. Often when members were under strain in this place Charlie would make a witty interjection. Charlie Mutton was a man of the people and a representative of the people. He spent hours each day handwriting letters to every person in his electorate who got engaged, who turned 21 or who had recently had a death in the family and so on. He wrote letter after letter to his local constituents. In those days a member of Parliament had to pay for his own stamps, which was an indication that Charlie was a fair dinkum type of bloke. 1744 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Adjournment

Charlie loved sport and people and he is a man who will be missed. To illustrate the following he had in the Coburg area, history shows that when Charlie Mutton retired the Australian Labor Party endorsed a Labor Party stalwart for that seat, but Charlie's son Jack, who was beaten for endorsement for the seat, stood as an Independent and beat the endorsed Labor Party candidate largely on his father's reputation. Jack Mutton served the people ofCoburg for many years, and the closeness that Charlie Mutton had with so many people in Coburg was a great help to him. I know that he enjoyed his life and lived to a great age. I am sorry to learn today of his passing, and I extend my sympathy to his family. The SPEAKER-I desire to support the condolence motion. Charles Mutton clearly had a remarkable life and made a great contribution to the community in the sporting field, in the industrial field, in the union field and in various forms of political activity. It is amazing to think of an individual whose political activities in one form or another extended from 1906 to 1989. His service in elected public office stretched over 42 years-which is difficult for many of us to comprehend in this day and age. Charlie Mutton served the people ofCoburg for a long period in this Chamber, but in addition to simply being a member representing Coburg he was a member of one of the Parliamentary committees between 1961 and 1967 and undoubtedly contributed to the high regard in which the committees of this Parliament are held. I extend my sympathies to Charles Mutton's widow and to his family. The motion was agreed to in silence, honourable members signifying their unanimous agreement by standing in their places.

ADJOURNMENT Mr CAIN (Premier)-I move: That, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Charles Mutton, Esquire, the House do now adjourn until 3 p.m. The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 2.40 p. m. The SPEAKER took the chair at 3.3 p.m.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I ask the Premier: is it a fact that during the final year of the previous Liberal government-- Honourable members interjecting. Mr BROWN-There is an old saying, "He who laughs last ... " Honourable members interjecting. Mr BROWN-Is it a fact that during the final year of the previous Liberal government the total cost to run Victoria was $5900 million but last year the Cain government spent $12 000 million to mismanage this State-an increase of 102 per Questions without Notice 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1745 cent? I ask: if this is a fact, how does the Premier justify this massive increase when our trains do not run on time, capital works are falling behind and public hospital waiting lists remain a national scandal and people know they are not getting value for money? The SPEAKER-Order! The latter part of the question is out of order because it expresses an opinion. Mr CAIN (Premier)-I had thought the new Leader of the Opposition might do better than that for his first question. He seems merely to have trotted out the same old hackneyed stuff we have had for the past seven years. I was interested that he harked back to those bad old days of Liberal governments in this State. I hesitate to think what this State and this nation would be like if there had not been changes of government in 1982 and 1983. We would have had economic chaos right across the country. I was interested that the Leader of the Opposition cast his mind back. If the Leader of the Opposition, in the weeks and months ahead, in preparing for the next sessional period-I am not sure whether he is a seat warmer-should have an opportunity of comparing what has occurred in this State over the past four or five years with what it was like in the early 1980s, he will embark on this job with due trepidation because he will see, if he analyses the position carefully, that what has been achieved by this government in the past six and a half years IS to make this State the fastest growing State in the country, and the State with by far-I think it has been so for 71 months now-the lowest unemployment of any State in the country. We have a better record than any other State in respect of the level of taxes and charges, all the things about which people are concerned. People are far better off than they were in 1982, and they all recognise it. If there is any doubt of their recognition, have a look at the results of the last three State elections and the Greensborough by­ election. If one wants to know what the people think, that is where the answer is. People have consistently endorsed this government's approach to those issues. They have continued to return this government for the kind of administration they want. I welcome the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to learn more about this State and its comparative position with other States. He will see that we are far better than anywhere else.

RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-Will the Minister for Education confirm that a study conducted for the Ministry of Education facilities committee has discovered a total of 492 surplus relocatable classrooms in and around the Melbourne area? Will she explain why none has been allocated to country schools where there is a reported shortage of 142 classrooms? Is it a fact that the Minister is seelling to distance herself from the fiasco by establishing yet another smoke screen committee? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-If the honourable member for Swan Hill had been paying attention during a recent debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting, he would have heard the answer to that question. I gave the answer some two weeks ago now. It is quite correct to say that we do have a shortfall of portables, not only in country areas but also in some metropolitan areas. In the past Ministry policy was not to transport portables across regional boundaries. My view is that the policy has to be changed, but is has to be done on an equitable basis and, of course, honourable members opposite are the first to get upset if a portable is shifted in the middle of a school term, and quite rightly so. The government 1746 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Questions without Notice is setting up an independent audit of the portables available and those portables will be shifted to appropriate schools at the end of term.

FAMILY BUDGET PLEDGE Mrs GARBUTT (Greensborough)-Following last week's Premiers Conference, will the Premier assure the House of the government's strong and continuing commitment to the family budget pledge? Mr CAIN (Premier)-I thank the honourable member for Greensborough for her first question. As the Minister for Property and Services has interjected, that was a great victory at Greensborough. It has been said that some things never change, and I suppose Premiers Conferences are one of them. Each year the Treasurer and I go to Canberra and are told we need to tighten our belts. This year our share of general revenue grants was slashed by $136 million and in the net result our share of borrowings by $251 million. Despite those reductions, I assure the House that the family budget pledge will be honoured by the government. The Premiers Conference has become one of the great rituals of Australian politics. In a sense it is a bit like another annual event, a Liberal leadership challenge. That seems to happen once a year but perhaps it is a little earlier this year. I take the opportunity of congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his election this morning. I shall afford him the same respect and consideration that I afforded to his predecessor and that I shall afford to his successor. I understand the Leader of the Opposition is the king. I am not sure who the king-maker is, whether it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Michael Kroger, the Leader of the National Party or who it might be. Some say he is just keeping the seat warm. While I am in a generous mood, I pay respect to the former Leader of the Opposition, who has been a worthy opponent since 1982. It has perhaps been his misfortune to lead a party that is unable to offer a coherent and credible alternative to this government and to preside over a party. that was unable to unite behind him or to come to terms with its ten years in the wIlderness. However, I pay him a tribute and I wish him the best. I emphasise that every State Budget is difficult to prepare and this one will be no exception; but it will not affect the family budget pledge. The total cost of basic items provided by the government will be the same in June 1992 as in June 1988 for a typical family. That assurance has been given and the pledge, nearly already at the halfway point, is in good shape. The halfway mark will be reached in July 1990 and on that date on average a family with two children and a car will be paying less than they did at the outset of the pledge. The pledge is in marked contrast to a lack of any clear indication of direction, philosophy or policy of those opposite. That is the difficulty the Opposition has faced for a long time. The government will continue to provide clear direction and guidance to this State, not just in economic matters but in other matters, and the people will continue to respond to that kind of leadership, guidance and clear indication of where we are going.

PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I direct a further question without notice to the Premier. Honourable members interjecting. Questions without Notice 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1747

Mr BROWN-The long-suffering taxpayers don't find this boring. Honourable members interjecting. Mr BROWN-I can assure you that they will hear plenty of it under me! Is it a fact that the Victorian public sector debt has increased from $11 400 million in 1982, when the Labor government commenced its mismanagement of this State, to $23 600 million at present? If this is a fact, will the Premier inform the House what benefit the people of Victoria have derived from the doubling of the public debt and how he intends to repay the money without further increases in taxes and charges and without a reduction of services to the community? Mr CAIN (Premier)-It is a pity that the new Leader of the Opposition did not take time during earlier years to listen to what was being said about debt. It is nonsense for him or anybody else to suggest that the level of State debt is other than responsible and appropriate. Honourable members interjecting. Mr CAIN-Honourable members opposite can go on shouting as much as they like. That is what the Leader of the Opposition's predecessor did. The SPEAKER-Order! There is too much interjection, which is making it difficult for the Premier's answer to be heard and is distracting the Premier. Mr CAIN-The Leader of the Opposition can shout as much as he likes. It got his predecessor nowhere, and it will get him nowhere. If the honourable member looks carefully at the figures, he will note that, as a proportion of the Victorian non-farm gross domestic product, the State public sector debt is now approximately 28·5 per cent. It will be reduced to approximately 27·9 per cent by June 1989. That is well below the levels that we experienced in the years of Sir Henry Bolte. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make comparisons and make all those sweeping statements about the level of public sector debt-- Mr Stockdale interjected. Mr CAIN-The noisy honourable member for Brighton will go on chanting in the way that he does, and he will get nowhere, either. I do not know whether he will still be shadow Treasurer in the next shadow Ministry. I repeat: the level under the Liberal government in 1971 amounted to 44 per cent, compared with 28 per cent at present. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the current level is irresponsible or too high, let him tell me what he believes is a fair comment on the level of debt in 1971 under Sir Henry Bolte. It should be understood that when the Labor Party came to government, this State was going out the back door. I acknowledge that we primed the economy and considerable growth was and is occurring, just as it was occurring in 1971 and the years around that time. However, the debt level under Sir Henry Bolte went to 44 per cent. If the Opposition wants to go back and put this State in the doldrums again and say that we should spend nothing, it should say so. But I am going out there to do what I can to create jobs, development and growth. I know it is attractive to those who are slaves to the new right to talk about small government. We know who put the numbers together this morning-it was the new right. The same people who rolled lan Macphee did a deal with the new Leader of the Opposition. 1748 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Questions without Notice

Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Premier is indulging in debating the question. I direct to your attention Standing Order No. 127, and I ask you to bring him back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! It is probably not surprising that, given recent events, there is a fair bit of interjection this afternoon. Nonetheless, there is far too much interjection, which in turn, is distracting to the Premier. I uphold the point of order and ask the Premier to return to his answer to the question. Mr CAIN (Premier)-I make this point: the government has the economy going better than any other State in the Commonwealth. The unemployment figures, the employment growth-all the data-show that to be the position. I mention one other figure to support the case I have put to show that the current level of debt is responsible. This year the State debt will be 28 per cent of the gross domestic product, representing the lowest figure for all but two years of the past two decades. In historic terms it is a very low figure and despite that the government has been able to get the economy going. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to impress anybody he should not bleat about the level of debt unless he is prepared, as a corollary to or consequence of that, to say that he is going to run the economy out the back door as it was in 1981, which is what would happen. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to lead the party that will do that he will end up a greater failure than his predecessor!

STATE BANK VICTORIA Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-I direct to the Treasurer's attention his previous declaration to the House during the National Safety Council of Australia (Victorian Division) scandal that the State' Bank operated in a fully commercial framework, competed on equal terms with private banks and was not placed in shackles-to use the Treasurer's words. Will the Treasurer now explain, firstly, why the Premier directed the State Bank to alter its interest rate policies on home loans in direct contravention of the Treasurer's earlier declaration and, secondly, why, if the bank was not placed in shackles by the government, the management of the bank responded so quickly to the Premier's directions? Mr JOLLY (Treasurer)-The facts of life are these: John Cain, the Premier of this State, did not direct State Bank Victoria at all in respect of the matter raised. The Premier has had a consistent record in inducing all banks to limit increases in interest rates and attempting to have all banks reduce interest rates, unlike honourable members opposite. At the press conference, State Bank Victoria was acknowledged by the Premier as having the best record of any bank over a long period in respect of interest rates. It is also important for honourable members to note that approximately 42 per cent of home loans allocated by State Bank Victoria are at the level of 13·5 per cent, and that percentage of home loans is higher than those granted by any other bank operating in the State. It was clear that the Premier was concerned that a number of members of the public had misinterpreted the newspaper advertisement. Consequently, the Premier made it quite clear that regardless of whether it was the State Bank or any other bank the matter should be clarified. The State Bank considered the matter and issued a new advertisement that made it quite clear that its prime rate was 16 per cent. The bank also indicated that approximately 80 per cent of customers above the deregulated 13·5 per cent rate received loans at the rate of 16·25 per cent or less. Questions without Notice 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1749

I advise also that it has been the view, as expressed by other banks, that other banks were lending at 16 per cent to all customers. It has been brought to my attention that some customers at Westpac Banking Corporation have loans at interest rates of 16·75 per cent. Clearly there is an area of concern there. I shall be continuing to examine the positions of other banks to ensure the information provided is consistent and readily understood by all home borrowers.

RURAL ARTEmAL ROADS STRATEGY Mr KENNEDY (Bendigo West)-I ask the Minister for Transport to give the House details of the further progress he is making in the development of the government's rural arterial roads strategy. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I thank the honourable member for his interest in both road and transport issues, which stands in stark contrast to the interest of the Leader of the Opposition in transport, who, despite the fact-and I notice his embarrassment-that he was previously the Opposition spokesman on transport, has not asked a question on transport since 23 November of last year! Six months! This is the six-months "anniversary" of silence. Of course, government members thought that was because he was so embarrassed about his monumental failure in transport; but perhaps it was because-- Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker: having suffered the Minister's dangerous index finger, I put it to you that he is debating the question. I refer you to Standing Order No. 127, and I ask you to bring him back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! I have been listening to the Minister's introductory comments. I believe it is appropriate at this stage for him to proceed to a substantive answer to the question. I uphold the point of order. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I was about to observe that this is the first time a sausage has become a butcher! Honourable members interjecting Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-Mr Speaker, I put it to you on a point of order that for some time now the Minister has been referring to the Leader of the Opposition in a derogatory way. I find the term-- Honourable members interjecting Mr DELZOPPO-I find the words that he is using offensive, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw them. Mr Crabb-Which is offensive, "sausage" or "butcher"? The SPEAKER-Order! The Chair can only speculate as to who the Minister for Transport may have been referring to. I suggest that, whomever the Minister was referring to, he should refer to that honourable member by his or her correct title. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I thought it was a matter of notoriety; but I was referring, of course, to the Leader of the Opposition-in case there was any doubt about it. I withdraw the remarks that the block finds so offensive. Honourable members interjecting Mr KENNAN-We have a butcher; we have to have a block! Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I direct to your attention Standing Order No. 108, which specifically prescribes that honourable 1750 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Questions without Notice

members should not make derogatory remarks about other honourable members. Clearly the Minister has made a derogatory remark. I ask you to bring him back to order In accordance with Standing Order No. 108. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Forest Hill has taken exception to the expression used by the Minister. Mr Richardson-No, I did not. Honourable members interjecting. Mr Richardson-It is the Standing Order! The SPEAKER-Order! And he has done so by invoking Standing Order No. 108 and seeking my ruling on it. I uphold the point of order. I ask the Minister to come to his answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Bendigo West, and to observe the provisions of the Standing Orders. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I shall proceed with my answer to the question and try to ignore those highly provocative interjections that have been distracting me. In June of last year, as my colleagues in the corner would be aware­ the erstwhile colleagues in the corner so far as the Liberal Party is concerned-the ~overnment developed a policy called Vicroads 2000, which was a project to try to Identify key rural arterial roads and to work through, in consultation Wlth Victorian regions and local government, those issues to enable us to do what we have done with METRAS in the urban areas, so that there is a long-term plan for identification and priority of those roads. Since then, as the honourable member for Bendigo West directed to my attention, twelve regional workshops were held in August and November last year and a number of regional issues papers were released as a result of that. In the next fortnight the Road Construction Authority will release a number of Statewide discussion papers addressing those important issues affecting the State. The government will be seeking submissions-and I know it will receive submissions from the National Party-and comments from local government, community groups and residents on the draft strategies. In September the government proposes to release a final draft strategy with a view to a strategy being released in December laying out the plans. Mr W. D. McGrath interjected. Mr KENNAN-This year, 1989. The emphasis of the Vicroads 2000 strategy will be consistent with the government's economic and social justice strategies and our strategies for rural development, tourism and conservation. It is important in this context to note that in the planning for this we are not into wasteful, overdesigned urban metropolitan projects, as is the Liberal Party. Mr Leigh-Tell us about the South-Eastern Arterial Road car park! The SPEAKER-Order! I caution the honourable member for Malvern. I do not wish to take further action against him today, but he has been a consistent, loud and provocative interjector. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr KENNAN-I do not wish to reflect on your rulin~, Mr Speaker, but the honourable member was certainly a lot more articulate in hiS comments than at the opening of the South-Eastern Arterial Road project last August. The government is not in the business of inequitable road funding, but that is what the Liberal Party is about. The Liberal Party proposes to deprive rural areas by wasting money on overdesigned projects in the city that will not provide any more roads for Questions without Notice 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1751 the dollar. As honourable members in the corner party know, last week I opened the Dimboola bypass, a 5 kilometre section of road costing $5·3 million. It cost $1 million a kilometre. At the opening of that bypass the mayor of the local municipality said, "You must remember that there are other road needs in the country". I replied, "I do, but the Liberal Party does not". If the Liberal Party had its way, it would be tipping tens and hundreds of millions of dollars into overdesigned urban freeways. Victorians would not have the Dimboola bypass, the Morwell bypass, the Ballarat bypass, or the duplication of the Hume Highway. The Opposition's transport policy has been a complete failure. Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-Mr Speaker, the House has been very patient with the Minister in his reply. I suggest to you that he is now debating the question, and under Standing Order No. 127 I ask you to bring him back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! I have been listening carefully to the Minister's reply since the last point of order was raised. At this stage I do not believe the Minister is debating the question. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I was pointing out to the House that the government is concerned with effective road policies. The Liberal Party does not support that. It does not support this distribution across the whole State. Its transport policy is miserable. I am reminded of a comment made 25 years ago when there was a succession of government leaders in South Vietnam. Bob Hope said, "It's a great democracy. Everybody gets a chance to be leader!" It is the same in the Liberal Party: even if one is a recognised failure, one is encouraged and gets the chance to be Leader in Victoria! The government is not into the simple, rent-a-crowd policy of the Liberal Party. Honourable members should recall the extraordinary performance of the Leader of the Opposition with the Fitzsimons Lane bridge episode. Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-Having listened further to the Minister's reply, I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that he is now debating the question. Under the provisions of Standing Order No. 127, I ask you, Sir, to bring him back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! The Minister for Transport had commenced a further set of remarks that may have led him to appear to be debating the question. I uphold the point of order and I ask the Minister to round offhis answer. Mr KENNAN (Minister for Transport)-I assure the House that in carrying out and finalising the strategy, the government will deliver the best road result for all Victoria and not just certain sections of it. The Vicroads 2000 policy is about ensuring that we get as many roads as possible built in the right places, in the most cost-effective manner and in the manner that is best for the local regions in economic and tourism terms, so that all the dollars spent in this State are spread fairly and equitably across Victoria and not just in Melbourne.

TRICONTINENTAL CORPORATION LTD Mr PESCOTT (Bennettswood)-Will the Treasurer advise the House when he first became aware of the dire financial straits ofTricontinental Corporation Ltd and what representations he made in an effort to rectify that situation? Mr JOLLY (Treasurer)-Firstly, I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for being the runner-up in the annual Liberal Party leadership contest. After today's effort, I expect it to be a far more regular event. 1752 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Questions without Notice

So far as Tricontinental Corporation Ltd is concerned, as I have said, State Bank Victoria made a commercial decision consistent with those of other major banks to fully integrate Tricontinental Corporation Ltd into the operations of the State Bank. The Chief Executive of the State Bank made it clear that an independent examination undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand revealed that the net worth of Tricontinental was of the order of $95 million. It should also be understood that for the 1988-89 financial year there is an expectation that the Tricontinental organisation will make a small profit. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had cared to read the statement issued by the Chief Executive of State Bank Victoria, Mr Moyle, he would have known that that was the position. It should also be understood that over the past four years the profit performance of Tricontinental has been strong. The return to the State Bank on its investment with Tricontinental is of the order of 36 per cent a year, even if the organisation has only a break-even position this financial year. Consequently, there has been a clearer, more positive and stronger investment return for the State Bank. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, by interjection, keeps asking when did I know. I was advised by the Chief Executive of the State Bank at the end of last week about the position of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and the expected profit. The same applies to the net worth of Tricontinental. Its net worth indicates that its assets are worth more than its liabilities, and that is a strength. Honourable members interjecting. Mr JOLLY-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not been on the frontbench for very long and it is often necessary to undertake some economic education in this place. Members of the Liberal Party have been slow learners. The government does not know how long the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be in that position; he obviously wants to be the Leader of the Opposition but he may well return to the backbench. We will just have to wait for the next six-monthly leadership challenge. However, I repeat, clearly in relation to Tricontinental the Chief Executive of State Bank Victoria has advised me that he expects Tricontinental to make a small profit this financial year.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN EDUCATION Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna)-I ask the Minister for Education to inform the House, in the development of the Victorian certificate of education curriculum, what progress is being made in promoting equal opportunity in career choices for students? Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I am pleased to inform the House that rapid progress is indeed being made in the development of the VCE-Victorian certificate of education-curriculum to promote equal opportunity. The first task obviously in encouraging-the honourable member for Brighton is interjecting and has mentioned soft options. The SPEAKER-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Brighton cease interjecting. He has not given the Minister an opportunity of answering the question or barely to start answering the question before he has commenced a barrage of interjections. Ms KIRNER-Thank you, Mr Speaker. Soft options are, ofcourse, easily understood by the honourable member for Brighton! The soft options are the ones he takes for Questions without Notice 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1753 any of his shadow Ministry economic positions. I am quite sure he will find out what the soft option is like when he is on the back benches shortly. The first task obviously in equal opportunity for the VCE is to ensure that all teachers understand the opportunity that the VCE offers to students. That indeed has been a very busy task for VCAB-the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board. I am pleased to say that over the last term 80 per cent of teachers have in fact been in-serviced-in-service training-on the VCE. That means 20000 teachers in the government and non-government systems will have been in-serviced on the VCE by the end of this term. The second task, of course, is to provide a common credential. This will be the first time in Victoria that there has been one credential for all students that is accepted by employers, the Ministry of Education and universities alike. I am pleased to see the work that has gone on with VCAB and with the university institutions and the employers in developing a common credential. In the past previous governments have allowed all kinds of credentials to develop-Tech 12, STC-all with useful parts to them but all grading students according to different approaches. The third task is to ensure that the community understands what equal opportunity is all about, in education particularly. We might well, of course, hope they might start on the members of the Liberal Party Opposition because there is no doubt at all that one of the reasons that they are currently on the Opposition benches is because thay have no understanding of equal opportunity for women and girls. Indeed, what choices will the new Leader of the Opposition have when he picks his shadow Cabinet next week, as he told us? What choices will he have? The kinds of policies that have been pursued by the previous Leader of the Opposition have allowed him the opportunity of choosing only one woman. I invite honourable members to look at the government backbench and at what equal opportunity has done. May I make one suggestion, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition; as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a shadow Minister without portfolio-- Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention Standing Order No. 127. The Minister does not have the latitude to advise the Opposition on one thing or another nor to debate the question. I ask that she be brought back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! The question by the honourable member for Wantirna sought information from the Minister in respect of matters falling within her portfolio. Some of the matters which she has addressed seem to stretch that somewhat. I uphold the point of order and I ask the Minister to keep her answer relevant to the question. Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-It would indeed be very useful if those points of view were picked up by the Opposition and we could have a consensus approach. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could in fact be the shadow Minister for equal opportunity. I am sure that that would keep him very busy and keep him from worrying the Leader of the Opposition about future personal opportunities, although it is difficult I imagine for-- Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan)-On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, you have already upheld my previous point of order. The Minister is continuing in defiance of your ruling and I ask that she be brought back to order. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Narracan has raised a further point of order on comments made by the Minister subsequent to my ruling on the previous point of order. I uphold the point of order and ask the Minister to keep her remarks relevant to the question. 1754 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Petitions

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the essential issues in encouraging equal opportunIty in undertaking the VCE is to ensure that young women choose to do maths and sciences in year 11 so they may keep their career paths open. In the past few years that has not been the case. I am pleased to say that, under the encouragement of the Ministry, we find now in a recent study of district provisions that 90 per cent of young girls are choosing to do maths in year 11, which will enable them to keep their career paths open. I fully appreciate that the National Party also does not have an understanding of equal opportunity. The SPEAKER-Order! The Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party should cease interjecting. Ms KIRNER-It is very interesting indeed that now the Opposition is at least beginning to pick up the words "equal opportunity", even if it does not understand the concept, because certainly when the National Party had a real chance to influence government girls were studying maths in VCE only at the level of 40 per cent. Now at year 11 they are studying maths at a level near 90 per cent. That is because of our deliberate encouragement. May I also say that the other issue that is essential for achievin~ equal opportunity for girls in the VCE is to ensure that technological studies are avatlable in all schools. One of the things that happened under previous governments was that technical schools and high schools were divided. Technical schools were for boys to learn things through the use of their hands. High schools were for girls to do business studies. Taking up the interjection of the honourable member for Forest Hill, at least being called a dill is preferable to being called a stupid woman, and who looks stupid now, MrSpeaker? Finally, in talking about technological studies, one of the biggest advances that we have made as a government is to determine that from 1 January next year there will be no such thing as technical schools and high schools to divide students and layer students. There will in fact be secondary colleges that offer, through their comprehensive curriculum, technology studies to all students regardless of their sex.

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

Caging and trapping of birds 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 respectfully shows their opposition to the cruel and unnecessary caging of birds and the breeding and trapping of birds for trade. Birds cannot live a natural life confined as ornaments in a cage. Your petitioners therefore pray that the caging, trapping and selling of birds be made illegal immediately. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mrs Ray (1390 signatures)

Duck hunting and shooting 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 respectfully shows their opposition to the cruel and unnecessary slaughter of wildlife during duck shooting. Hunters themselves claim that up to 30 per cent of animals they shoot escape wounded. These animals are left to suffer and die alone. Petitions 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1755

Your petitioners therefore pray that the duck hunting season and the hunting and shooting of ducks in the State of Victoria be made illegal immediately. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mrs Ray (60 signatures)

Alpine grazing leases 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 respectfully sheweth: that mountain cattlemen and their traditional grazing leases in the Victorian high country are an integral part of the heritage and management of the high country; that their contribution to the management of the high country over 150 years far outweighs any dubious claims of damage; that the concept of huge national parks, current management practices, and World Heritage listing is against the best interests of the high country and its active enjoyment by all Victorians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands abandon forthwith the proposal to evict eleven mountain cattlemen from their alpine grazing leases. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Kennett (28 signatures)

Price marking of goods To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AsSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned that the introduction of computerised price scanning into supermarkets has resulted in the removal of individual price marking ofgoods and that this will disadvantage consumers in the marketplace and severely handicap their rights as shoppers. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Minister should ensure the retention of individual price marking of goods in shops using price scanning computers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Harrowfield (18 signatures)

Mornington Bowling Club 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 respectfully sheweth: That we are gravely concerned at the decision of the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands that the Mornington Bowling Club Inc. relocate off the foreshore reserve in the Esplanade in ten years time. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government take immediate action to rescind this direction, which will cause considerable distress and expense to the members of the Mornington Bowling Club Inc. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Cooper (385 signatures) 1756 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Petitions

Improvements to road and rail intersections in Somerville 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 respectfully sheweth: that 593 residents of Somerville petitioned this Parliament on 17 September 1987 seeking action to improve the dangerous conditions that exist at the road and rail intersections in Eramosa Road, Somerville before lives were lost; that following no action to improve the intersection as requested a life has now been lost at the rail crossing on 17 March 1989. Your petitioners therefore pray that heed be immediately paid to this petition to implement the plans that have been in existence for at least nine years so that the chances of further loss of life at these intersections will be significantly reduced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Cooper (40 signatures)

Foreshore land in Flinders 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 respectfully sheweth: we are concerned about the commercial development of foreshore land in the Shire of Flinders from Safety Beach to Dromana, north-on the seaward side-ofthe Esplanade, and from Dromana to Sorrento, north-on the seaward side-of Nepean Highway. This will lead to the destruction of the treed, natural foreshore land and beach in this, the most popular tourist area in Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Victorian government will alter the planning scheme for this area and zone the area as "recreational, not for commercial or higher density housing development". To meet the need for increased facilities for the resident population and tourist visitors to the area we support the further progressive, high-density development of land on the southern side of the Esplanade and Nepean Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Dr Wells (266 signatures)

Flinders planning scheme 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 respectfully sheweth: we are concerned that the current building height limits in the Shire of Flinders planning scheme will lead to unacceptable reduction of the current level of amenity enjoyed by residents and visitors. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Victorian government change the Shire of Flinders planning scheme to ensure that: 1. No new commercial development at all nor new housing development above two storeys is permitted on the foreshore between Safety Beach and Portsea; 2. Building height limits from the water's edge to 1·6 kilometres inland in the shire be brought in line with planning controls covering the rest of the eastern Port Phillip Bay coastline making the normal height limit two storeys and exceptionally three storeys. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Dr Wells (15 3 signatures) It was ordered that the petitions be laid on the table. Legal and Constitutional Committee 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1757

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE Law relating to charitable trusts Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) presented a report from the Legal and Constitutional Committee upon the law relating to charitable trusts, together with appendices, extracts from the proceedings and minutes of evidence. It was ordered that they be laid on the table, and that the report, appendices and extracts from the proceedings be printed.

PAPERS The following papers, pursuant to the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid on the table by the Clerk: Benefit Associations-Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1987-88. Planning and Environment Act 1987-Notices of approval of amendments to the following planning schemes: All Planning Schemes-No. SI. Eltham Planning Scheme-Nos L2, L3. Keilor Planning Scheme-No. LI0. Metropolitan Region Planning Scheme-Nos R26, R51, R54, RL34. Preston Planning Scheme-No. L7. Richmond Planning Scheme-No. L2. Romsey Planning Scheme-No. L7. South Melbourne Planning Scheme-Nos L4, L8. Sunshine Planning Scheme-No. L1. Tambo Planning Scheme-No. L22. State Employees Retirement Benefits Board-Report for the year 1987-88. Statutory rules under the following Acts: Associations Incorporation Act 1981-SR No. 102. Fisheries Act 1978-SR No. 103. Hospitals and Charities Act 1958-SR No. 98 together with a copy of the Health Insurance (Variation of Fees and Medical Services) Regulations under the Commonwealth Health Insurance Act 1973 as required by section 32 of the Interpretation ofLegislation Act 1984 to accompany the Statutory Rule. Optometrists Registration Act 1958-SR No. 73. Professional Boxing Control Act 1958-SR No. 105. Public Service Act 1974-PSDNos 16, 17, 18. Sport and Recreation Act 1972-SR No. 106. Supreme Court Act 1986-SR No. 101. * * * * * The following proclamations fixing operative dates for various Acts were laid upon the table by the Clerk, pursuant to an Order of the House dated 25 October 1988: Agricultural Acts (Amendment) Act 1988-Section 14; 22 March 1989 (Gazette No. G.tl, 25 March 1989). Building Control Act 1981-ltems 54, 55, 56 and 70 of the Schedule; 4 April 1989 (Gazette No. G.12, 22 March 1989). 1758 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Auditor-General's Report

Borrowing and Investment Powers (Amendment) Act 1989-27 April 1989 (Gazette No. S21, 27 April 1989). Community Services Act 1987-Items 1 to 13 of Schedule 2; 15 March 1989 (Gazette No. Gl1, 15 March 1989). Crimes (Custody and Investigation) Act 1988-15 March 1989 (Gazette No. G 11, 15 March 1989). Health (Amendment) Act 1987-Section 9; 1 October 1989 (Gazette No. G19, 17 May 1989). Health (General Amendment) Act 1988-Section 7 on 1 July 1989, Section 45 on 1 October 1989, and Section 17 on 31 December 1989 (Gazette No. G 19, 17 May 1989). Health Services Act 1988-Sections 18 to 69 (except section 27),135 to 138 (inclusive), 140, 141, 142, 144 to 154 (inclusive), 156 to 159 (inclusive), 166 to 176 (inclusive), 177 (1) except paragraphs (b) and (c), 178, 180, 182 to 192 (inclusive) on 14 May 1989; Section 27 on 1 July 1989 (Gazette No. G17, 3 May 1989). National Parks (Amendment) Act 1981-Section 3 (5); 19 April 1989 (Gazette No. G15, 19 April 1989). Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention) Act 1987-Part 2; 1 April 1989 (Gazette No. G12, 22 March 1989).

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Ministerial portfolios The SPEAKER-Order! I have received the following communication from the Auditor-General: Dear Sir, Report on Ministerial Portfolios May 1989 In accordance with the Audit Act 1958 suspected or actual theft, wilful damage, arson, irregularity or fraud in connection with the receipt or disposal of money, stores or other property notified to me by departments or public authorities were included in the above report tabled by you on 9 May 1989. It has been drawn to my attention that the initial advice received from the Ministry of Education in relation to an irregularity at the Northcote High School has proved to be incorrect. Consequently I forward a corrigendum to my report (refer Table 3.7D on page 75-Northcote High School) as follows: Amend the words "canteen manager" under the heading "nature of misappropriation" to "school bursar". Yours sincerely, C. A. BARAGWANATH Auditor-General

APPROPRIATION MESSAGES The SPEAKER announced that he had received messages from His Excellency the Governor recommending that appropriations be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the following Bills: Intellectually Disabled Persons' Services (Amendment) Bill Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill Fire Authorities Bill Legal Professional Practice (Amendment) Bill Adjournment 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1759

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Minister for Planning and Environment)-I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow, at eleven o'clock. The motion was agreed to.

RACING (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from April 20) on the motion of Mr Trezise (Minister for Sport and Recreation) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-The Racing (Amendment) Bill is a small Bill that amends the Racing Act. The amending Bill will change the number of people appointed to the Greyhound Racing Control Board by reducing the number of members of the board from six to four and providing that, in addition to the chairman of the board, there shall be three other members. The Bill provides for a process of quorums and the appointment of an executive director and that one of the persons appointed to the new board have experience in the greyhound racing industry. The Bill also provides that the executive director of the board will have a vote in decisions of the board and will not be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act. These changes to the Act are important because they relate to the capacity of the individual who will be chosen as the executive director. It is obviously the desire of the Minister for Sport and Recreation that the new board will have a more professional and flexible approach in conductin~ the affairs of the greyhound racing industry, and the appointment of an executive dIrector from outside the Public Service will allow the board to pay an appropriate emolument to attract the right person to this high office. The racing industry has a significant impact on and is a major part of the State's economy. The total turnover of racing in Victoria in 1987-88 exceeded $3 billion­ dare I say, nearly as much as the unfunded liability of WorkCare-so gambling, in more ways than one involves large sums of money. The turnover of the greyhound racing industry was $204-5 million, or 6·8 per cent of the total turnover of the racing industry for that year. The Greyhound Racing Control Board is a statutory body established pursuant to provisions in the Racing Act. The administration of the Act is the responsibility of the Department of Sport and Recreation, and it is handled by the departmental racing and gaming division. The functions of the board are set out in section 75 of the Act and they are to control the sport of greyhound racing; to carry out research into aspects of greyhound racing; to assist in planning future development to promote the sport of greyhound racing; and to exercise such powers, functions and duties as are conferred on it under the legislation. The proposed legislation allows me to consider some of the achievements of the board. Greyhound racing made a record Totalizator Agency Board off-course turnover of$204-766 million for the ·1987-88 season, which surpassed the previous best turnover by almost $16 million. That is an enormous achievement. Greyhound racing is probably the fastest growing of the three racing codes. The turnover in 1987-88 represents an increase of approximately 55 per cent since the 1981-82 season, so honourable members can see that there have been significant improvements and changes in the industry. 1760 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

The industry involves large sums of money and some of the reasons for its success are the direct results of the initiatives taken by the board. The board purchased radio station 3UZ, which ensured future broadcasting of greyhound racing and provides for better covera~e and promotion of sport in general. The promotion of the industry in 1988 by televIsion commercials was another initiative that has been well received. In the short time that I have had the responsibility for this portfolio as the Opposition spokesman, people involved in the industry, including administrators, have been complimentary about the quality and standard of those television commercials. The sport has benefited because of coverage by Sky Channel and, in a sense, is complemented by enabling legislation covering Pubtab, which the Minister introduced in Parliament not so long ago. Recently I was in Sale to present the Sale Cup at a greyhound meeting. It was highlighted to me then that the industry was pleased with the introduction of twilight meetings, especially in country areas. The board subsidises late openings of strategically located TAB agencies on Monday and Thursday evenings. Honourable members can see that the changes have been evolutionary. As a result of contacting people involved in the industry about the proposed legislation, I was informed that in 1985 the Greyhound Racing Control Board proposed central grading as a means of addressing complaints from owners and trainers and this was rejected in favour of providing clubs with a choice of central grading or club grading. I have received mixed comments on that issue but generally the representations I have received have been in favour of retaining central grading or club grading. It removes confusion and a number of clubs were positive about the support they have received in the grading process. The industry, as part of this evolutionary change, has been the subject of a number of studies. In 1981 a report was prepared to assist forward planning and to assure the most effective use of the resources of the greyhound industry. That review made 97 recommendations. The report was the basis on which the greyhound industry has been developed. It was the first real move to recognise it as an industry rather than a sport. I hope the family approach to greyhound racing is not lost; the breeding, training and racing of dogs are activities from which many families and dog owners derive great pleasure. It would be a shame if that were lost to the industry. The sheer pleasure and enjoyment that owners and trainers obtain from their involvement in the industry is not matched in the other codes of racing. That is not to suggest that people involved in harness racing and the gallops do not have a great love for their sports, but the same very close personal relationship does not appear to exist. Another conclusion drawn was the need to consolidate resources, and the provisions of the Bill enhance that prospect. I am reminded that another inquiry into the greyhound racing industry is proceeding at the moment; I understand that Touche Ross and Co. has that consultancy. In the 1981 report a strong emphasis was placed on the need for administrators of the sport to identify savings at the regional rather than the club level. The process used was to examine the sport more as an industry, and it was decided that administrators should actively cooperate with the Greyhound Racing Control Board. The Bill makes specific reference to direction in terms of the role to be played by the new executive director. That role will be enlarged and will become more important. Presumably, it will be built on the previous report. If I had to be critical I would say that it is a pity the Bill has come before the House prior to the Touche Ross and Co. report being made available for the consideration Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1761 of the community because it could be argued-although, on balance, perhaps not in a totally valid way-that the Bill pre-empts the findings of that inquiry. The 1981 report recommended that the Greyhound Racing Control Board and the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board be restructured, and that both should be given additional precise powers to initiate industry decisions. The obvious intention of the Bill is to build on that process. A report of the racing industry drug control working party has been made available. I have had the opportunity and privilege of visiting many greyhound racing communities where people have considerable pride in the strict way in which they administer and run greyhound racing. One probably never will have an industry that is totally free of those who may want to give an advantage to one dog or horse over another, but many steps are being taken to minimise the extent of that. The further consolidation of the board and its policy directions should enhance controls in that respect, thereby not only ensuring fairness in terms of the owners and trainers but also, most importantly, ensuring some certainty for punters in terms of propriety. The racing industry'S total turnover in 1987-88 exceeded $4 billion; $204·5 million­ less than 7 per cent-of that amount is attributed to greyhound racing. A rapid increase in interstate investments has occurred since 1982-83, and in country racing since 1981-82, to the extent that investments in country regions could overtake those in the metropolitan events over the next few years if the trend continues. Total offcourse investments in 1982-83 decreased for metropolitan meetings but dramatically increased for country greyhound meetings in 1985-86. The sport has seen a change in its support, and that is significant when considering the structure and representative role of the board. The new Greyhound Racing Control Board will have Bill Collins as chairman, a deputy chairman, an executive director and a person who is to be experienced in the greyhound racing industry. Given the most important and growing role of non­ metropolitan greyhound racing, it is important that the board include to represent the industry a person who has a clear and detailed understanding of the non-metropolitan racing industry. That is not to say that the person must live in the country, but he or she must have a clear understanding of what the industry needs. I suspect that the situation in the country reflects the results of the introduction of twilight meetings at country clubs as well as the upgrading of facilities. The club at Sale has invested extensive funds in this way, and I understand that the same situation applies at Traralgon, although I have not yet visited that course. The availability of more Totalizator Agency Board facilities must be an important factor in this situation. Another significant development in the code is the way punters at metropolitan and country greyhound racing meetings consistently invested more through the oncourse system at meetings during the period 1982-83 to 1987. I do not have the exact figures but have seen graphical proof to that effect. Another area of interest relates to stake moneys which appear to have been limited in availability in the metropolitan area in the period 1980 to 1986 compared with increased stake moneys since 1981. Those involved in the industry are concerned at the level of stake moneys available in Victoria because they are not as generous as, for example, those available in New South Wales. The new board should address that problem because if interest, growth and development in a sport of which gambling forms part are to continue, it is important that the stakes attract the best available participants. That has occurred through increased prize money for other major events such as the Melbourne Cup, which is obviously the pinnacle of horseracing events. It is an area where there has been a massive infusion of funds. Session 1989-57 1762 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

In debate on the Bill that introduced Pubtab, I referred to appropriate figures. I am concerned at the reduction, having obtained the information under freedom of information le~slation provisions. That information was tabled in the House on a previous occaSIon, and a reading of H ansard will supply the figures. The decline that has occurred is relevant to the point I made about the surety of the field, the position with respect to central grading, the prize money and the encouragement provided for the industry to be involved. If the costs of breeding, maintaining, transporting and entering dogs in events reach a stage where the potential benefit in prize money does not go anywhere near reimbursing those involved, there will, of necessity, be a reduction in quality and in the number of people investing. I am concerned about the reduction in litter size and I hope the Greyhound Racing Control Board will address that issue and assist the industry to further develop, not only in a numerical sense-that is not everything-but also in the quality and standard of dog produced. The central gradin~ method has been brought to my attention by a number of clubs and associations dunng the course of my discussion and consultation on this Bill. In a letter of 2 May 1989 under the heading "Central upgrading", the Bendigo Coursing Association said: This method of selecting race fields came into existence during the presidency of Mr Brian Halpin and has proved a good success. Some seven greyhound clubs use the service provided by the board and other clubs request the board to fill in for them whilst their grader is on annual holidays. The cry to get rid of this service comes from people who do not understand, as they claim it is too costly. Central grading does cost the salary of one grader and a part-time assistant. All the costs are taken up in the operation of the computer system in operation to register the greyhounds' performance, ear brands etc. That organisation is making a plea to the Minister that he invite the board to pay particular attention to this area. If there are fears within the industry-as the letter would indicate-perhaps the Minister can allay those fears in his response to this debate or, alternatively, an appropriate comment from the board may be the correct way of dealing with it. The club, together with others, makes the valid comment with respect to the structure of the board that: In our opinion, we feel that it does not matter whether the board consists of four or seven members provided that the gentlemen selected are experienced, non-political and non-biased. One could add that the club has some understanding, knowledge and professionalism, because, if the sport is to be further developed, it is not the time to appoint somebody as a reward for past services. I hope that is not the intention of the Minister, but on behalf of the clubs I seek his comments in that regard. Concern has been expressed about the pink guide which is prepared by the board, and the gold guide produced by the board's competitor. With little modification, the pink guide would be at least equal, if not superior, to the gold guide offered by the private sector. If the new board is to go into this area in its own right, it should ensure that it gives the private sector the opportunity of becoming involved to enable the best possible guide to be made available to the industry, the patrons and the punters who support this growing industry. A number of clubs have expressed concern about the Totalizator Agency Board's distribution and any proposal to alter the present distribution formula. At the present time, the fund is dIstributed with the first cheque being for the Greyhound Racing Control Board's operations. The two city clubs receive 48 per cent and the eleven country clubs receive 52 per cent. Whatever the Minister's views are with regard to the distribution, it is important that he makes some comment about the measure Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1763 because country clubs are fearful that, if the ratio is altered in favour of city clubs, there will be a significant injustice to country clubs. On balance, I go along with that view because of the development of country clubs and the effort they are putting into it. That is not to say that the metropolitan clubs are not doing their part. It is important that the board does not rush into making chan~es in the distribution of funds. It is important for the clubs because their livelihood IS involved; they need that income to carry out their functions. One must not ignore the problems with respect to the greyhound racing clubs. It is no secret that the financial arrangements of the greyhound club at Sandown have received a good deal of attention and inquiries have been undertaken. The new board could exercise far greater control over the financial administration of the clubs. With the money that is involved in the industry, it is not only fair but proper and decent that that should take place. Regular auditing of the funds distributed by the board would in many ways provide the board with the opportunity of judging whether those funds had been used wisely, properly, in the interests of the industry and in the direction that the board proposed. I know that the clubs, according to their constitution and rules and the legal requirements of company law in this State, are required to produce annual reports, annual accounts and so on. There is a vast difference between reality and the glossy reports that seek to paint the best picture of the organisation. Concern has been expressed in the industry in the interests of punters and the people who support the clubs, and indeed in the interests of the administrators of those clubs which suffer public criticism, that there should be an inquiry. There is a role for the board to play in exercising closer control of financial administration. The Liberal Party seeks an undertaking from the Minister with respect to the structure of the board and the prospective flow-on to other codes. Concern has been expressed that this "small board" approach may be thrust upon other sections of the racing industry. I seek a response from the Minister on whether other sectors of the industry are performing adequately in carrying out their role with their different boards. Each code has a different board structure. Is the Minister satisfied that a good job is being done and that no change is required, or is some new board structure being proposed by the department? Once again, if that response could be elicited from the Minister it would allay fears that exist at present. My own view is that if a good job is being done and if things are going well, one should not tamper with a winning formula; but woe betide those who fall by the wayside-those who are not doing the job they ought to be doing! I also raise with the Minister the question of the size of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. I should like to know whether it is his intention to review the operations of the new board and, ifso, at what time. It is fair so say that a lot of goodwill, support and hope is being attached to the future success that may be derived from this board structure, but I wonder whether he plans some review of the new board's performance in the light of the Touche Ross and Co. inquiry, and as development takes place. It would be unfortunate indeed if the Act is changed and we are locked into a situation simply because we do not want to fall back to making any other changes if things do not go right. If it can be shown that an increase in the number of members on the board, or a decrease in the number, will bring about a better and more responsive board for the industry, I wonder whether the Minister will be planning further changes or whether he will feel that legislative change is something that ought to be left for five or ten years. I have mentioned a couple of times that an inquiry is being conducted by Touche Ross and Co. for the board, and it is important that I place on record its terms of 1764 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill reference because the changes proposed in the Bill will have a significant impact on the outcome of that inquiry. As I said earlier, if I have any criticism it is that the passing of the Bill now is pre-empting the inquiry; but that does not mean I am critical of the inquiry. The inquiry is the sort of thing that I have been saying, in different ways, needs to take place. Briefly, the terms of reference are: firstly, to examine the existing financial situation of the industry both at board and club level; secondly, to determine whether existing arrangements of each club and the board are administratively sound and cost efficient; and, thirdly, to recommend strategies to achieve optimum cost efficiency in the industry, included in which will be an assessment of the cost efficiency of central grading compared to club grading. From those terms of reference the House will understand why some of the responses to the Bill received by the Opposition have referred to things like club gradings. The industry is conscious of the review process that is taking place. The Opposition supports the Bill and wishes its passage well, and wishes the industry well. We hope the new board will have a successful future. I am tempted to suggest names of people who might fit into some of those categories for board membership but perhaps that is not something I should canvass at this time. The Minister, from conversations we have had, would know of my support and preference in some areas and I suspect that we share a common view on that point. I trust that the Bill will bring to the industry the success that it would want, and that greyhound racing develops much further into the 1990s. Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South)-The Bill is a small one, containing only nine clauses. There are three main clauses within the Bill-clauses 4, 5 and 7. They are the important ones. As always, some changes have to be made and heaven forbid if those changes are not made, particularly given the fact that a greyhound racing Bill was debated some 31 years ago. For that reason alone, there have to be changes. In the country racing area there are about twelve clubs and in the metropolitan area there are two clubs, which are extremely important-the Sandown Greyhound Racing Club and the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association. I shall not list the country clubs as there are about a dozen of them. The greyhound racing industry involves the average man and woman in the street. It is his or her opportunity of being involved either as an owner, a trainer, or a punter. On numerous occasions I have attended different club meetings, particularly at Sandown Park Racecourse and Olympic Park. The enjoyment felt by the spectators at these meetings is obvious. Each race is a real team event and the twilight meetings are certainly enjoyable. Last year 207 000 people attended these meetings, with the stakes totalling approximately $2 million. In the country areas, with twelve clubs, approximately 185 000 people attended meetings, which is not far short of the figure in the metropolitan area, and the stakes totalled $2-5 million. That figure alone stands to show just how important the greyhound racing industry is to the economy, to the sporting facilities that promote it and also to the people. I shall quote from a letter I received via the Minister, which sums up the situation fairly well. It is from the Sale and District Greyhound Racing Club and it is addressed to the Minister. It states: The Sale and District Greyhound Racing Club Inc. wishes to make strong protest against the proposed legislation to change the composition of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1765

The present seven-person board has been responsible for the huge upsurge in greyhound racing in recent years. Their planning and forethought has improved the image and popularity of the sport immensely. That is a fairly good example of what is being said in the community. The letter continues: The smaller outer circle of clubs, of which ours is a classic example, wallowed for many years in the quicksand of our pittance of a distribution with little or no chance of improvement. The introduction of central grading and a more equitable distribution scheme gave our clubs the ray oflight ... And a ray of hope, I suppose, almost without exception, to those smaller clubs. They are the thoughts of a number of clubs around the State and over the past few years the greyhound racing industry has had a marked upsurge in support. I suppose the Minister for Sport and Recreation can take some credit for that fact because he has seen numerous changes, but the administration side of the industry needs to be examined. Already there has been a marked improvement in the administration of the greyhound racing industry. The industry really has its act together and has put the sport right where it belon~s-up in the top bracket. In these terms, the relevant clause I should like to deal with IS clause 4. Clause 4 (1) amends section 69 (2) of the principal Act to change the structure of the Greyhound Racing Control Board by reducing the number of members from six to four and providing that, in addition to the chairman, the other members shall be a deputy chairman who shall be a person experienced in business or marketing, an executive director, and a person who has experience in the greyhound racing industry. The National Party will be proposin~ a minor amendment to enhance the Bill. The amendment will apply to clause 4 (1) (et) and the words "in Victoria" will be proposed to be added after the word "industry" in the provision that one member shall be a person who has experience in the greyhound racing industry. I shall elaborate later on the reasons for the amendment. However, it is important that those words are included. The 1988 annual report of the Greyhound Racing Control Board states that in the metropolitan area 107 meetings were held, whereas 568 meetings were held in the country. Therefore, vastly more greyhound racing meetings are held in country areas. The metropolitan area attracts $2 million in stakes whereas in the country the stakes are $2·5 million. It is extremely important that the members appointed to the board have appropriate experience. I am sure the names of prospective members that have been bandied about reflect that experience. However, the point I wish to make is that, because 568 meetings are held in country areas compared with only 107 in the metropolitan area, the enormous amount of country experience needs to be harnessed. Country interests need to be able to put their case. I hope board members, who have experience in the greyhound racing industry, will take this point into account. Most people involved in the greyhound racing industry live in the country, including owners and trainers. They are the people on whom the greyhound industry relies, because most breeding is carried out in country districts. I should like to ensure that country areas have some protection. I am aware of the problems that have arisen in the past and, because of those problems, changes have to be made. Clause 6 amends section 75A (7) of the principal Act by substituting the words "executive director" for the word "secretary". This will mean the industry will have a more professional type of operation. That is desirable and reflects a trend whereby the word "secretary" appears to have gone out of favour. Clause 7 alters the structure of the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board from a four-person board to a three-person board by amending section 83A (2) (b). 1766 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

Subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) are replaced by a new subparagraph (ii) which ensures that the member will be a person who represents country greyhound racing interests. It is important that the Bill is passed quickly without any problems. Earlier, reference was made to the Touche Ross and Co. inquiry. Perhaps the Bill should have been held over until the inquiry was complete. However, in his wisdom, the Minister wanted the Bill to pass, no doubt because of the impending spring carnival and the new financial year. I hope that, when the Bill is passed, it will not be superseded by the findings of the inquiry or strike any problems in that area. Except for the small amendment that I intend to propose during the Committee stage, the National Party supports the Bill. Mr NORRIS (Dandenong)-I could not let the opportunity pass without making a few remarks on the Bill and congratulating the Minister because, as I see it, the Bill provides for excellent and much needed reform of the administration of the greyhound racing industry. Mr W. D. McGrath interjected. Mr NORRIS-If the Deputy Leader of the National Party does not consider that these are reforms, I do not know what he would consider to be reforms. The thrust of the Bill is that the Greyhound Racing Control Board will be reduced from a six­ member board to a four-member board. One of the features will be that one of the four members will be the executive director. I see the basis of the government's thrust in the measure as one of efficiency. I know it is a matter that has been the subject of much discussion within the industry. Although there was considerable opposition to it, the Minister, with his charm and knowledge of the industry, was able to convince those who originally opposed the idea to come around to his way of thinking. I say with confidence that the Minister has the complete support of the greyhound racing industry for the measure. The four-member board will operate as a very smooth and efficient unit without the sectional interests that unfortunately plagued the operations of the Greyhound Racing Control Board in the past. All honourable members will agree that members of the Greyhound Racing Control Board in the past did represent sectional groups-interests, clubs, and parts of the industry. Mr Reynolds interjected. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Gisborne will have his opportunity. Mr NORRIS-I certainly hope the honourable member for Gisborne makes a contribution. I notice that he is nodding his head. I know, as does the honourable member for Gisborne, that many members of the board were often brought to book by their clubs or representatives if they did not adopt a particular line at the meetings; they were tightly hobbled. The measure will completely rectify that situation. I commend the Minister for his extensive consultation with the greyhound industry on the measure. It can be said without fear of contradiction, that the current Minister has been the saviour of the greyhound racing industry. In preceding speeches, other honourable members also complimented the Minister. When one looks back on the state of the industry when the Labor Party came to office, and before this Minister was able to put his splendid and far-reaching ideas into operation, one realises his contribution. I refer to such measures as the introduction of the fixed percentage distribution of the Totalizator Agency Board surplus whereby 8·5 per cent is distributed to the greyhound racing industry. If one examines the absolute figures, one realises Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1767 that the market share is significantly below that. The honourable member for Gippsland South mentioned that measure. Nevertheless, the 8·5 fixed percentage has enabled the industry to continue to go forward, and I agree with the previous speakers, the honourable members for Hawthorn and Gippsland South, that signs are now good. They are excellent. A lot of confidence is now being imbued in the greyhound racing industry. One can only wonder what would have happened if the fixed percentage measure had not been introduced. I am sure the industry would have languished, stakes would have dropped and the availability of money to owners would have been significantly reduced. The Bill also provides what is in effect a consequential amendment to the structure of the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board. The proposed structure will in fact bring the development board into line with the structure of development boards that operate in both the thoroughbred racing industry and the harness racing industry. This is another good measure. The Bill provides for a three-person board, the three persons being an independent chairman, the chairman of the controlling board or his nominee, and a member appointed by the Minister representing, in the Minister's opinion, the interests of country greyhound racing. It is proper that the Minister should place the greyhound industry on a similar basis to the other codes of racing, thoroughbred racing and harness racing. The Minister also said in his second-reading speech that the greyhound racing industry has enormous potential for future development. I certainly agree with that assessment. Honourable members who have had contact with the greyhound racing industry will agree that it is comprised of endearing people who are unique. One could say that in many ways greyhound racing is the working persons racing sport. The connotation has always been that the working man or working woman-I suppose working person is correct in modem terms-could have his or her own dog and have a stake in the thrills and the enjoyment of racing. Honourable members will agree that in the past the industry has been fraught with dissension. A lot of individual barrows have been pushed by small racing groups. Although these people have always been committed greyhound racing people, unfortunately at times they have pulled against one another. Good feeling is high within the industry at the moment and I hope that, with the guidance, patience and perseverance of the Minister, who has always had the confidence of the industry, anyone who wants to will be able to go to a greyhound racing meeting and have an enjoyable night. I agree with the honourable member for Hawthorn, who complimented the industry on its recent excellent promotion. A television commercial that has been made is one of the best I have seen for any sport. I know there were problems with the first commercial that was made but the second commercial about the young boy and the dog was beautifully produced and the message really hit home. It showed that greyhound racing is a family sport in which one can be involved with satisfaction. I compliment previous speakers on their remarks and in particular I compliment the Minister for introducing the Bill and the initiatives it contains. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Mr REYNOLDS (Gisbome)-I shall speak briefly on several points in the Bill. I have received input and comment from many people connected with the sport of greyhound racing. I call it a sport because 97 per cent of the people involved are part­ time participants. It is more a sport than any of the three codes of racing. 1768 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

I have discussed the Bill with people who have had up to 60 years of experience in the industry and the message that comes through is that this is a Bill created for the wrong reasons. It is not a Bill of principle, it is a personal Bill. By reducing the number of board members from six to four, the services of two or three current members of the board will be dispensed with. I cannot understand how the honourable member for Dandenong could make the comments he did when one considers that the current board was appointed by the current Minister and the Act specified that the Minister must not take notice of sectional interests in appointing those members. For the honourable member for Dandenong to say that there was sectionalised fighting and trouble is an indictment of the Minister. In fact, the honourable member has castigated his own Minister. The Bill appears to me and to many people associated with the sport to have been created for personal reasons rather than for a principle. There is dissatisfaction in some sections with a couple of the members of the board, but I do not want to go into that aspect at this stage. There is also dissatisfaction within the sport with the performance of some officers. The Bill will allow that to be amended. The history of greyhound racin~ administration shows that for 27 years there were nine seven-man boards each servIng three years. People across the whole greyhound racing spectrum have told me that that has worked well. The current six-man board was one of the last changes instituted by the previous Liberal government. I shall come back to that later. In the past eight years the three six-man boards have had problems. Those problems were created because the boards did not consult with the industry when they wanted to bring in major decisions, such as the central grading system. They foisted on the industry decisions that the industry was loath to accept. I do not entirely blame the board in this instance; the industry on the wider scale deserves to take some of the blame because of its inability to accept the decisions of its board. The ideal put forward by all sections of the industry to the Minister when he asked for an opinion was without exception that the industry wished to return to a seven-man board. It would appear by the wording of the Bill that the whole industry is wrong. I know that many have accepted the current four-man suggestion. Mr Trezise-Three man. Mr REYNOLDS-The Minister should be patient, I shall come to that matter. The current four-man position has been begrudgingly accepted, as reflected in a letter from the Chairman of the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association: Whilst both myself and the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association still wholeheartedly support the concept of a seven-man representative board, we bow to your authority ... I repeat, "we bow to your authority." Those are the words of the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association . . . . and assure you of our total support in order to endeavour to make your proposition work for the benefit of our sport. The letter was signed by Mr L. G. Foran, Chairman of the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association. That is democracy at work: "we bow to your authority". That is the way it should happen! The Minister at a meeting initially offered a three-man board, which he admitted by inteljection, but then compromised and said that he would appoint a four-man board. However, the rest of the industry does not want that. I wonder why the Minister Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1769 and the government, who talk about consultation and conciliation, did not agree to the interests of the people who know what they are talking about. It is interesting that, in his second-reading speech-and I shall pick up a few points in it-the Minister proposes a four-man board which will comprise the chairman, who shall be one who has no connection with or financial interest in any greyhound racing course or in any racing greyhound. Mr Cain-A four-"person" board. Mr REYNOLDS-The Premier interjects and refers to a four-"person" board rather than a four-"man" board. When I say "man", I mean "human". The appointee can be of either sex. I can understand why Terry McCrann, in an article in the Herald, talked about the Premier as being an "arithmetically inarticulate nincompoop"; I thought that was the most apt description of him that I have ever heard. The fact that the chairman of the board must have no connection with the industry may well preclude some very good people in greyhound racing in Victoria from appointment. It precludes the appointment of people from a section of the industry or the sport, who may be very well qualified to do the job. These are just some of the comments that have been made to me, and I believe that is a logical conclusion. As has been mentioned by many people, the Minister and the department have put forward the names of four people who are likely to be appointed to those positions. Mr Trezise-We did not put them forward. The industry itself gave six names to us. Mr REYNOLDS-Did the industry give the Minister six names? And has he not accepted them or given any indication of whether they will be accepted? Mr Trezise-No. Mr REYNOLDS-Has the Minister not given any indication of who should be appointed to these positions? Mr Trezise-We have not finalised anything yet. Mr REYNOLDS-So, you have not finalised anything, but you have given some indication? Mr Trezise-Well, yes, but they are not finalised yet. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Sbell)-Order! Conversations across the table are disorderly, and the honourable member for Gisborne should address the Chair. Mr REYNOLDS-Sir, I thought the interjection of the Minister, which was only an aside-and I hope I have been addressing the Chair, and I thank you for your guidance-was very telling. It indicated that, yes, the industry had suggested some names of people who they thought would be appropriate for appointment to the four positions and, yes, the Minister had given an indication that he believed they would be appropriate. Therefore, some indication has been given by the Minister. One of the people who would obviously feel slighted, whose position is one of the four mentioned, would be the current deputy chairman, because the Bill states that the deputy chairman shall be a person experienced in business or marketing. That precludes the current deputy chairman, Ron Nestor, who has been an appointment of this Ministrer in recent times, from obtaining the position. He could not accept the position of deputy chairman because he probably does not fit the description set out in the Bill. 1770 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that he considered the Bill would put the board on a more professional basis, and that a further good example of this move to a professional basis could be seen with the Victorian Football League, which had already recently moved from a board representative from each club to an independent professIonal board. I do not query or argue with that, but I have heard the Minister in this place stand up and lambaste the VFL and its administration for some of the decisions they have taken. Yet, now he chooses to use that administration as the perfect example. I believe a bit of hypocrisy is evident here. The Minister said that the chairman of the board should have no interest in greyhound racing, but he used the VFL board as an example, and yet the chairman of that board has a very direct experience in VFL football. He is Mr Ross Oakley, who, as all honourable members know, was a league footballer and an administrator of the Hawthorn Football Club. The Minister chooses to use the VFL example when it suits him, but not when it does not suit him. I believe the change in the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board is sensible. All the people with whom I have spoken agree that that will put the board in line with the other two racecourse development boards. That seems sensible, logical, and much more workable. I prefer to call the greyhound industry a sport, because I believe it is much more of a sport than the other two racing codes. In fact, 97 per cent of the people who take part in the sport do so on a part-time basis, which is quite different from the other two racing codes. Therefore, greyhound racing is a family sport, which enables people to walk their own dogs, participate in the sport, and so on. I believe one of the joys of greyhound racing is to see, in the presentation of one of the big cups at either Sandown Park Racecourse or Olympic Park, that the whole family is decked out in T-shirts with the name of the dog emblazoned on them, which have been especially produced for the occasion and usually designed in the colours of the rug in which the dog is racing on the night. It provides a great atmosphere and is a tremendous family sport in which many amateurs participate. The Opposition is not opposing the Bill, as such, but it does highlight a few minor concerns, of which I trust the Minister will take note, particularly given that the industry does disagree with him in the main and the fact that he has pushed this four­ person board on to the industry, or the sport. I raise a final point. It relates to a man who I am sure the Minister will agree is probably the acknowledged expert and the person who knows more about greyhound racing than anyone, Mr Noel Banks. He has suggested to me-and I put it forward for the Minister's consideration-that the word "Control" be deleted from the title of the board. In other words, the board would become the Greyhound Racing Board. There is little difference, except that it provides direction. The board does not hold races of its own, as does the Harness Racing Board, but that board is not called the Harness Racing "Control" Board. The Greyhound Racing Control Board does not hold its own races; it only directs the clubs that conduct all the races. Mr Banks also suggested that the word "Racing" could be deleted from the title, so that the board would become the Greyhound Board. The reason is simple: there are many facets to this sport other than racing, such as breeding, and just the joy of owning a dog as a pet. The Minister has admitted that the people whom he appointed to the board have not worked satisfactorily. He has tried a board of six members. He has also tried a board of five members because for thirteen months since the death ofMr Keith Bravo on 26 April 1988, during which time the Minister did not appoint a replacement, the board has worked as a five-man board. The Minister stands condemned for not appointing someone to take Mr Bravo's place. Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1771

There has been a choice of other directions, and I hope the proposed new four­ person board will be given that opportunity. I wish it well. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-I support the contribution of the honourable member for Gippsland South who spoke so well on behalf of the National Party. The greyhound racing industry has grown in recent times. Honourable members need only read the annual report of the Greyhound Racing Control Board for 1988 to see the significant increases in the amount of money made available by the government to the industry. In 1984-85, $1·65 million was made available to metropolitan weyhound racIng clubs and the figure for 1987-88 was $2·037 million. A similar Increase was made in the allocation by the State to country clubs. In 1984-85 country SI:eyhound racing clubs received $1·562 million and in 1987-88 they were given $2·593 million. Those figures say something for the Greyhound Racing Control Board, which was made up of six persons. Since Mr Keith Bravo died, the board has had an effective membership of five persons. I pay tribute to the late Keith Bravo. Whenever I went to a greyhound race meeting at either Olympic Park or at Sandown Park Racecourse, he extended hospitality to me. I apprecIated always the courtesy shown to me by Mr Bravo and his wife. I was not a frequent visitor to the two venues but whenever I visited them I valued their friendship. Recently I attended a greyhound race meeting. Mrs Bravo was there without her husband. She has shown a high degree of commitment through her continued interest in greyhound racing. The National Party feels somewhat slighted by the manner in which the Minister for Sport and Recreation has drawn up the proposed membership of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, as provided in clause 4 (1): (b) one ... shall be a person who has experience in business or marketing ... (d) one shall be a person who has experience in the greyhound racing industry. As well, there will be the chairman. I have no criticism of the present chairman of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, Mr Bill Collins, who is doing an excellent job. When one speaks to members of country clubs around Victoria, they endorse those remarks. Recently I was speaking to the officials of the Horsham Greyhound Racing Club about the proposed legislation and their sentiments were expressed strongly. They are satisfied with the performance ofMr Collins. He is considered to be a person who is able to move around the venues, is always approachable, and is easy to talk to about the greyhound racing industry. As I said, the National Party is somewhat disappointed that there is not a position specifically designated for someone representing country interests. I understand the Minister has asked for a list of names to be submitted to him from which he will consider the appointment of four members to the Greyhound Racing Control Board. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has asked for nominations from people from country areas. Clause 7 deals with the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board and provides in paragraph (b): (ii) one shall be a person who in the opinion of the Minister represents country greyhound racing interests. It does not provide that the person must reside in the country but that the person will represent country interests. The clause could be more specific and ensure that the representative on the board came from the country. Perhaps the Minister might address that matter in his concluding remarks; that is, whether the person appointed to represent the country greyhound racing industry on the Greyhound Racing Grounds 1772 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

Development Board will come from outside the metropolitan area, and whether the word "represents" overrides the need to specify that the person must reside in a country area. As I said, the Minister should have specified in clause 7 (1) (b) (ii) that the representative would come from a country region to represent that area of greyhound racing. All honourable members will agree that the Victoria Racing Club is in one of its most successful periods in its history. While there has been a considerable degree of success in the past, the present level of success is higher than ever before. The Chairman of the Victoria Racin~ Club is Mr Peter Armytage, and he resides in the country. His chairmanship is an Indication that people who live in the country have a good knowledge of the various racing codes and could serve well on the board covered by the Racing (Amendment) Bill. I ask the Minister, in considering the nominations for appointment to the four­ person Greyhound Racin~ Control Board, that the people appointed are not people just from the city. OtherwIse the Labor government and the committee which advises it on its policy on sport and recreation will be seen to be considering only city interests and not the interests of the whole State. There are two greyhound racing clubs in the city. They are much stronger than any country greyhound racing club. In the country there ar~ eleven clubs, and I hope they will get full and proper consideration. . I refer again to the 1988 annual report of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. It shows that the number of people who attended greyhound race meetings in the metropolitan area in 1987-88 totalled 207 184 and that they attended 107 meetings. In the country there were many more meetings in the same year-568-and the number of people attending those meetings totalled 184976, so the figures show that the total number of people attending meetings in the country is not much lower than the total number attending meetings in metropolitan areas. As I said, the greyhound racing industry is strong, particularly around the Horsharn area. I have attended meetings in Horsham on a number of occasions. The club conducts some 52 meetings each year, and for tonight's meeting they have 140 nominations. In one particular maiden race there are 30 dogs nominated, although only eight can be placed in the race. In the main greyhounds are bred in rural areas. It is important for the good of the industry that not only the Greyhound Racing Control Board but also the government gives that issue strong consideration. Mr Actin$ Speaker, you will be well aware of the revenue the government gains from gambhn~ on all the racing codes. That revenue is spent in many areas-on hospitals and In the provision of other government services. Certainly, not all of it is returned to the industry. The honourable member for Gippsland South dealt with the Bill very thoroughly. He has foreshadowed an amendment that I hope not only the Minister but also the Liberal Party will consider favourably. Certainly it will strengthen the Bill. I hope the greyhound racing industry remains stron~ and aggressively promotes the health of the industry. I hope it will continue to prOVIde opportunities for those who take part in the industry and will now and again reward them for their participation. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-I thank the honourable members who contributed to the debate. It is fortunate that members on both sides of the House have an interest in and a knowledge of many sports. In particular, those members can make valuable contributions to debates on the way in which the racing codes operate. I welcome the contributions of members opposite; and the government of the day extended me a similar courtesy when I was the Opposition spokesman in Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1773 this area. I thank the honourable members for Gippsland South, Hawthorn, Dandenong, Gisborne and Lowan for the contributions they made. There is no doubt that the greyhound racing industry plays a very important role in Victoria, not only because of the contribution it makes to State revenue but also because of the enjoyment and employment it gives to many thousands of Victorians who follow greyhound racing in one way or another. The prestige of the greyhound racing industry has gone from strength to strength in the past twenty years. Previously it was somewhat old-fashioned-back in the pace making days, when there was less coverage by the media and there were no Totalizator Agency Board facilities. The industry has now become modernised; and the TAB facilities offered to it are similar to those offered to the horseracing codes. When I was the Opposition spokesman in this area I recall asking a question of the relevant Minister concerning the provision of TAB facilities for greyhound racing. The then Minister looked at me and said, "Greyhound racing? That is one game that I will never envisage on the TAB". Much progress has been made since. The provision of a fixed percentage distribution from TAB turnover has given a great boost to the greyhound racing industry. Pubtab has also been handy. Because most TAB agencies close at 6 p.m., the operation of Pubtabs together with the televising of greyhound races on Sky Channel has been of benefit to the industry. Hotel patrons can view those races and bet on them. The honourable member for Gippsland South also referred to the twilight meetings held by various country racing clubs; and again, those meetings have been of benefit to the industry. So far as the Greyhound Racing Control Board is concerned, many innovations have been made over recent years. The provisions of free admission to certain meetings has been a step forward, as has the provision of free tote tickets in certain circumstances. Such things as ties are also given away; and those measures have been provided for from the board's promotional funds. As occurs in football clubs, mothers clubs and political parties, factional groupings have come into play on the Greyhound Racing Control Board. I have followed greyhound racing all my life and, in all fairness, I must say that factional interests in the industry have sometimes been harmful. At times board members who were seen to represent the interests of certain clubs or sectional groups were ostracised even by their own clubs because they voted for measures that were in the best interests of greyhound racing throughout the State rather than in the supposed best interests of the group or club that they represented. I believe times have changed. As a former director of a Victorian Football League club, I remember that five years ago VFL directors were often forced, because of individual club pressure, to vote in a way that put the interests of their clubs first and the interests of the VFL second. Because of recent changes at management level, decisions are now made in the best interests of the VFL. Similarly, the restructuring of the Greyhound Racing Control Board will benefit the industry as a whole. In the past, occasionally group has opposed group, club has opposed club, and faction has opposed faction; the changes provided in the Bill will eliminate that problem. The way in which appointments will be made to the new board has been the subject of consultation with all sections of the greyhound racing code. The people who will be appointed to the board will work for what they believe to be the best interests of the industry in Victoria, even though some decisions may affect particular sections of that code. Recently I chaired a meeting in my office which was attended by representatives of both city and country clubs, the National Coursing Association and owner and trainer organisations. All agreed that it was in the best interests of the Greyhound 1774 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

Racing Control Board that the various factional interests were removed from the board. The honourable member for Gisborne read from a letter from Mr Les Foran, the Chairman of the Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association. That letter is not factual. In his letter Mr Foran claims that all the various greyhound organisations wanted a seven-man board. That is not correct; certainly, the Sandown club for one did not want that. Mr Foran also said that he supports the concept of a seven-man representative board. If a board is established that represents seven different sections of the industry, we might as well not have a new board at all. The honourable member for Hawthorn also highlighted the fact that the stakes for greyhound racing have not grown in proportion to the stakes provided in New South Wales. Certainly I am aware that the stakes have not grown in proportion to those provided in the galloping codes-especially when one compares the cost of keeping greyhounds and the stakes that are provided for greyhound races with the increases that have occurred in the stakes in both the galloping and harness racing codes in recent years. The honourable member also expressed his concern about the fact that litter numbers are falling. Greyhounds are usually raced by working-class people. These days often an owner must take a dog to Horsham or to a distant track to win a race to qualify for metropolitan races. After knocking offwork, that man must drive to the country track in a motor car usually travelling with his wife and kids. He has to pay for petrol, for the admission of his wife and children to the track and for tea. Even if he wins a race and buys a photograph to commemorate the event, often he will return home almost out of pocket. It is important to increase the size of stakes to keep battlers and working­ class people interested in the game they love, greyhound racing. The honourable member for Hawthorn expressed a desire that the central grading method should be kept. Only three years ago when the code introduced central grading there was a hue and cry from many clubs and sections of the industry and threats that members of committees would resign if central grading was introduced. I am delighted that the clubs now are concerned that the system might be abolished. A compromise was reached so that grading would be conducted by the club and the Greyhound Racing Control Board, and that has been successful. In earlier days there was always the suspicion that people were getting their dogs into fields because they knew the right person on the committee rather than their dogs being properly qualified. If the owner of a dog was on the committee of a club racing at Olympic Park, Ballarat or Bendigo, there was always the claim that that person's dog was in the field only because he or she was on the committee. The present dual grading system-the club grading system and the central grading system-will ensure that the right dog is in the right field at the right place. I am sure honourable members will agree that is a big step forward in greyhound racing. I assure the Bendigo club that the central grading method will remain. No consideration has been given to removing that system, to my knowledge. The honourable member also raised the financial position of individual clubs. I agree that the Greyhound Racing Control Board should have the power to examine the inner workings of individual clubs to ensure that the dollar has been spent in the best possible way for the greyhound industry. One club could have five members of staff while another club could have only two members of staff doing the same amount of work; they have the same number of race meetings and the same number of races at each meeting. I agree that the board should look at examining that issue. Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1775

The honourable member also wanted the government to ensure that only non­ biased people were appointed to the board. Naturally I guarantee that these appointees will be non-biased. All the names on the lists for appointment have come from the National Coursing Association, the city clubs, the country clubs and the Greyhound Owners, Trainers and Breeders Association. I assure the House that all names put to me on the short list will be acceptable. A matter concerning the form guide at Bendigo was raised, but I presume the competition aspect of that guide will remain. There was a suggestion that the TAB distribution, whereby country clubs receive 52 per cent and city clubs 48 per cent, would be altered. I have heard of no such proposal of that occurring in the next year or so, but the Greyhound Racing Control Board will have the final say on that. I can almost guarantee that the new board will not change that distribution, at least in the short-term future. All the people nominated for the board to whom I have spoken believe the greyhound industry is operating well, and I do not expect any radical changes in the near future. The review of the new board's performance is a good idea. The new board will be appointed for three years, but I am happy to examine its performance halfway through and to consult with the National and Liberal parties to ascertain whether any changes should be considered. Honourable members will be aware that the government has not been loath to change the membership of boards mid term. That has been done in the past with the Totalizator Agency Board, the Harness Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Control Board. The government was sometimes criticised for that, but the steps the government took in those cases were usually justified. I am happy to examine the board's performance after twelve or eighteen months and consult with the opposition parties. The honourable member for Gisborne suggested that the reference to the chairman should not include any mention of an interest in a racing grey-hound. I do not criticise that description. It was put in the Act in 1961 by the then LIberal Party government. I just copied it word for word, so it is not the fault of the government. The honourable member also suggested that "Control" should be omitted from the Greyhound Racing Control Board. The honourable member for Hawthorn suggested that the board should take more control over the clubs. I see no reason to remove the, word. The honourable member for Hawthorn also suggested that this proposal may be the starting point for other sports being controlled and administered by government. The Victoria Racing Club runs galloping in this State. The Greyhound Racing Control Board runs greyhound racing. The Harness Racing Board, with its sectional interests, runs harness racing. In all fairness, I must say that I am a little tired of minor faction fights taking place in the Harness Racing Board. At present country clubs are represented on the board, but there are now three separate groups of country clubs that could want representation. There are the traditional country clubs, the provincial clubs, including Kilmore, Yarra Glen, Geelong and Ballarat which have broken away, and another section that does not belong to any group. I hope the harness racing people themselves will soon take some action to rectify the problem in the overall unity of their industry. The honourable member for Lowan asked whether I would consult with country clubs about their representative on the development board. I assure him that that will be done. In the harness racing code Mr Ryan from Echuca represents country clubs. In the galloping code Mr Grant Downie from Colac represents country clubs. I will consult with country clubs before an individual appointment is made to the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board. 1776 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Racing (Amendment) Bill

I accept the proposed amendment by the honourable member for Gippsland South about inserting "in Victoria" in clause 4 of the Bill. It is important that country clubs be recognised because their interests, whether they be galloping, harness racing or greyhounds, are often overrun by metropolitan clubs. I recognise that the number of country clubs far exceeds the city clubs, even though their turnover is not higher. They are a valuable part of the industry, and I assure the House that before making the appropriate appointment the government will consider country clubs. The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time and committed. Clause 1 Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber during the second-reading debate. In discussing the purposes of the Bill I refer the Committee to Robinvale, which is a key area in north-western Victoria. The Minister for Sport and Recreation will be aware that Robinvale is the only greyhound racing centre in north­ western Victoria. The next closest centres in Victoria are Bendigo and Horsham. Robinvale forms a convenient link between those centres and the South Australian centre ofRenmark and the New South Wales centre of Wentworth. The small Robinvale club has done an enormous amount of work over the past few years in promoting greyhound racing. It has a very strong industry in the area. The club has been well supported by the Shire of Swan Hill in upgrading the standards and courses for the greyhound industry. Prior to the changes proposed by this Bill the Robinvale club was encouraged by the current board members to apply for a full licence to be granted to the Robinvale community, together with Healesville, so that the club could participate at a higher level in the greyhound industry. With the restructuring of the Greyhound Racing Control Board and the Greyhound Racing Grounds Development Board, I ask that the Minister for Sport and Recreation consider the plight ofa community such as Robinvale. It is a long way from the rest of the Victorian greyhound racing industry, but it is an important area because a lot of greyhound breeding takes place there. The course at Robinvale, if granted a full licence, will provide links with the New South Wales and South Australian industries. The Greyhound Racing Control Board has encouraged the Robinvale community, and I hope that will not stop. I know the Minister has had discussions with the Robinvale Greyhound Racing Club, and I hope he will be able to assist me and that community in helping the club to upgrade its licence to a full licence. Greyhound racing has enormous support in the small community of Robinvale. The people involved in it have done a marvellousjob in lifting the standard and providing a good operation for north-western Victoria. I ask that the Minister give consideration to the isolated community of Robinvale. As I said, the Greyhound Racing Control Board has encouraged the Robinvale club and I hope the restructured board will also be encouraging the club in its attempt to obtain a full licence. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-I thank the honourable member for Swan Hill for his query on the application by the Robinvale Greyhound Racing Club for full acceptance as a greyhound club in this State. Three weeks ago I spoke to representatives of the club and I intend to visit the area in a fortnight to look at the club. I hope the honourable member for Swan Hill will be with me at that time. Racing (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1777

The Healesville Greyhound Racing Club is in a similar position. However, under the Act, only a certain number of greyhound tracks can be licensed in Victoria and the quota is currently filled. If Robinvale is accepted as a new greyhound racing track, proposed legislation will have to be passed by Parliament. An alternative would be to take away a licence from a club currently holding a licence. The track nearest to Robinvale is at Horsham, but consideration would not be given to removing that club's licence. If Robinvale is granted a full licence the share of the Totalizator Agency Board distribution for greyhound racing will be decreased for each club. In fairness, the application by the Robinvale Greyhound Racing Club is being considered. The locals are battling to train their dogs and then they must struggle to drive to Mildura to race them. The track at Robinvale is excellent; it was built in 1982 and I saw it a few years ago. If proposed legislation is required, it will be introduced in the spring sessional period. The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 2 and 3. Clause 4 Mr W ALLACE (Gippsland South)-No doubt the Minister for Sport and Recreation currently has in mind a person with experience in greyhound racing in Victoria to fill a position on the Greyhound Racing Control Board. My thoughts are for the future, and I am concerned that the person experienced in greyhound racing should be a Victorian and not someone imported from the Northern Territory, Western Australia or somewhere else. It is for that reason that I move: 1. Clause 4, line 9, after "industry" insert "in Victoria". Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-The Opposition supports the amendment. It is only fair that the person appointed under proposed section 69 (2) (d) be a person who has experience in the Victorian greyhound racing industry. That is a sensible approach to take. After all, as I pointed out during the second-reading debate, the greyhound racing industry is important to Victoria. Many people in Victoria have a strong commitment to the industry and they will be able to make valuable contributions. It should not be necessary for any government to go outside Victoria to find a suitable person to fill a position on the Greyhound Racing Control Board. That was indirectly mentioned by the Minister in his response to the second-reading debate. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-I accept the amendment. I support what has been said about Victorians: I have always believed that Victoria is for Victorians. Too often people from other places come across the border to apply for jobs. They interview well, look the part and dress well, but after they have been chosen over people known in Victoria one is often disappointed. People who have worked and proven themselves in the industry are respected by people from the greyhound racing clubs and they are the better appointees. When I was involved in the running of the Geelong Football Club, I recall that a person from interstate was almost appointed to a senior executive position. Eventually a local person was appointed, and six months later we were extremely glad the person from interstate was not appointed. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were the remaining clauses. The Bill was reported to the House with an amendment, and passed through its remaining stages. 1778 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Extractive Industries (Amendment) Bill

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from April 20) on the motion of Mr Roper (Minister for Planning and Environment) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-Extractive industries are not only among the most important industries operating in Victoria, they are major contributors to our whole society. They may involve sand, clay or stone and they affect many basic community elements-housing, road making and so on. The proposed legislation clearly hinges on how best to achieve a cooperative infrastructure in the industry so that it continues to operate, for the benefit of those involved in the industry and also for the benefit of the State as a whole and the environment in which it is operating. The circumstances are changing. Honourable members who have received representations about a quarry, which Prima Constructions and Development Pty Ltd at Kilmore and Broadford is trying to open, will realise the long lead times necessary to establish any sort of extractive industry. Municipalities do not necessarily agree with the process. Many municipalities overlook the fact that the resource cannot shift and the planning process can take account of the issues raised in applications for extractive industries. In the case of the Kilmore development proposed by Prima constructions, a lead time of no less than six years is involved and the matter is still before the Planning Appeals Tribunal on a technicality. It takes a considerable time to get a stone quarry off the ground. Another area where some major problems exist is a sand extraction project at Lang Lang. The initial application for an extraction licence was submitted in 1977. Although there is some movement at present towards ensuring that that sand resource is available for the developing eastern suburbs, the fact is that the life of the resource in the traditional sand area, the Heatherton-Clayton area, is at best two years, and the resource that might supplant that is identified at Lang Lang. A whole process of planning amendments need to be embarked upon to ensure that the Lang Lang area is available when the Heatherton-Clayton resource is exhausted. It is an industry which has made a significant contribution to the development of the State. It will, of course, continue to do so for as long as current building materials are used, for as long as we use the products of mineral extraction for a variety of industrial uses, and for as long as we continue to construct roads, using blue metal or whatever other stone is used in that process. As I said, these amendments are an attempt to have the industry take further control of its actions. Some of the amendments deal with the regulation-making powers, particularly in areas of quarry operation and health and safety issues. The proposed legislation involves the restructure of the Quarry Managers Board and the Extractive Industries Advisory Committee into a new Extractive Industries Board. It is proposed that, through that process, the approval of applications will be speeded up. It is hoped, by including a wider representation in the part-time membership of the board that a better working relationship can be developed. However, the one thing that has been overlooked is that the full-time members of the board will be three departmental officers. The people who work in that industry, the industry representatives, are excluded from full-time membership of the board. It would have been particularly beneficial for the board to have on it a member of the industry group, who are the extractors, to ensure that they, as complementary members Extractive Industries (Amendment) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1779 of that board, would be involved in the decisions which affect the industry. They regret they have not been included in that way. The method of operation of the board suggests that on most matters these people will be involved in decisions on a part-time basis but I understand that they have sought to be represented on the board on a full-time basis, but that has not been the government's wish in this matter. The Opposition will not be opposing the proposed legislation but in the other House, by arrangement, it will be moving an amendment which will allow either House to disallow the regulations. The regulations which have been developed for this Bill are extensive. Although they have been developed in consultation with the users and operators and people who are working in the environment, they undoubtedly represent a significant document and one which quite clearly will need to be closely scrutinized to ensure they really meet everyone's wishes. In many instances the industry revolves around town planning capacities, particularly in the northern suburbs and the Clayton area, where development has occurred right up to the boundaries of existing extraction areas. The situation reflects on the town planning process. Many of those industries which have taken out licences, generally for a fifteen-year period, had not envisaged the development coming right to the fence. Of course their methods of operation at times do have an environmental impact. In those circumstances some consideration should be given to those companies that enter into licences on one understanding and later find that the planning provisions provide for a different set of circumstances. I am not saying, and I do not think the industry would say, that the industry is not prepared to meet some of those regulations, but the companies involved certainly need to be provided with a reasonable time in which to adjust their operation and to ensure that they are able to meet what are now regarded as environmental matters. Part of this regulation process which has been embarked upon deals with that aspect. The other part of these major regulations relates to health and safety issues, many of which were covered by the previous regulation-making powers but were never proclaimed. It is only since those regulations were in fact promulgated and then sunsetted that this process has been embarked upon to ensure that the issues, particularly in relation to work safety, are dealt with. I have no doubt that, as time passes, those people who are enga~ed in the industry will benefit from the issues that will be addressed in the promulgatIon of these new regulations. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not intend to oppose the legislation but it will, in the other House, as is an arrangement with the government's own amendments, be moving one amendment. Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-The Extractive Industries Act 1966 was passed by Parliament after an inquiry by a former Parliamentary committee, the State Development Committee, of which I was a member. In those days, Parliamentary committees consisted mainly of six members, two from each party and each House of Parliament being represented. They represented an effective way of carrying out investigations. The particular example of the Extractive Industries Act is a classic example of the effectiveness of that system. The committee had a secretary but it did not have the benefit of research officers, large staffs, computers and all the other paraphernalia that is attached to the committees of today. I believe those committees undertook their responsibilities more effectively than is the current situation. In fact, it is a disaster that current committees have twelve members. It appears to be no-one's responsibility and everything is left to the 1780 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Extractive Industries (Amendment) Bill research staff. I do not believe individual members of the committees pay the necessary attention to the business at hand. In the case of the State Development Committee of those days, a considerable amount of time was spent on this matter because there was a need to restructure the industry. Until that point the industry had relied lar$ely upon the Mines Act for control of the industry. Of course, because ofa burgeonIng metropolis with extensive building occurring, there was a need to meet requirements for stone and sand and other substances required for building purposes. Access was needed to these substances so that the growth of building in the city was sustained. It was interesting to visit the sandbelt districts to see the extensive sand quarrying operations that were occurring and also to visit the granite areas and view the operatIons of quarries. Some quarries were situated close to the city area. Some people had built elaborate homes on the edges of quarries, but they complained when rocks and the like from blasting operations landed in their gardens and on their roofs. The quarries presented a real problem because if the city was to continue to grow it was essential that these raw materials were available to it. I cannot help but contrast the different attitude about the operation of quarries where materials are extracted for building purposes with the operation of extracting timber for building materials. There appears to be an attitude abroad in our society that it does not matter how many holes are dug but we dare not cut down a tree. Society is completely overlooking the fact that a tree can be replaced by another tree­ or it should be replaced by another tree-and that future generations will continue to benefit from that resource. In some respects a hole in the ground is an important resource for the metropolitan area for the disposal of the ever increasing garbage which the city ~enerates. Of course, old quarry sites have proven most useful for that purpose. ObVIously the day is not far off when we shall run out of these disposal places for metropolitan garbage because of the massive size of that garbage and we shall be confronted with the problem of the disposal of garbage elsewhere. Suggestions have been made that garbage from the metropolitan area should be transported to the Latrobe Valley to fill the open cut sites in that area. Typically that is all that the country gets back from the city-the garbage that the city does not want for itself. The proposed legislation tidies up the Act. It also demonstrates how effective the original legislation was because it has required little amendment over the past 23 years. The committee made good recommendations and the government of the day lntelli$ently put those recommendations into effect. That is a good example of the way in which the Parliamentary process should work. Unfortunately today rarely are recommendations put into effect. The National Party does not oppose the improvement made by the Bill. Obviously over the years attitudes have changed about many issues, particularly those relating to the environment. The conditions which were accepted a quarter of a century ago are not acceptable to many sections of the community today. It is reasonable to suggest that Parliament should periodically revise all legislation to bring it up to date. I note that this is what the proposed legislation does. The National Party does not oppose the Bill and it hopes that it is accepted by Parliament. Mr JOLLY (Treasurer)-I thank honourable members for their support of the Bill. The Bill is significant because the industry is important for the future of Victoria. The Bill is particularly related to the building industry. Honourable members have noted that the Bill is mainly devoted to improving the regulations and delegation of powers Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1781 to ensure the highest standard possible in this area. The Liberal Party and the National Party have accepted that amendments will be made to the Bill in another place and a more detailed debate will occur there. The major issues contained in the Bill concern the current regulations which are regarded as inflexible, prescriptive and unsuitable to the individual nature of differing types of quarrying operations and that is why my colleague in another place, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, regarded it as important to ensure that the Bill was passed during the autumn sessional period. Regulations are needed which are modem and enable efficient operation to occur. The technical evaluation which occurs in the development of quarries cannot be easily covered in the normal regulatory model that is currently adopted and is one of the inherent deficiencies in the Act. EXIsting regulations will be automatically revoked by the inbuilt sunset section on 30 June 1989. A new regulation, codes and other means of controlling the industry will be implemented prior to that date. Apart from changing the re~ulations to a more efficient method of controlling the industry, the proposed legislatIon also provides for the replacement of the two existing boards, the Quarry Managers Board and the Extractive Industries Advisory Committee by the Extractive Industries Board, which will be established under proposed new section 43. The two boards have been identified by the Law Reform Commission as providing a fragmented method of controlling the industry and that is why the government proposes through provisions in the Bill to amalgamate the two existing boards to assist in the efficient administration of the Act. In summary, I am pleased that the opposition parties support the broad thrust of the proposed legislation. It will result in a more efficient system of regulation and better administration in the future. The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

LAND (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) BILL The debate (adjourned from April 20) on the motion of Mrs Setches (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-The Opposition has some strong reservations about certain provisions in the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill. The introduction of the Bill follows a traditional scheme of revoking certaIn reservations in respect of miscellaneous land scattered across Victoria. It is almost annual legislation introduced to the House. The Opposition does not object to that so much as the proposals that are included in the proposed legislation regarding three areas. The first concerns the Willsmere land, if I can put it that way, at Kew and what is appropriate to be the boundary between the Yarra Bend Park and the Willsmere land. I direct to the attention of honourable members the fact that the then Minister for Planning and Environment appointed an independent panel to review the planning issues involved. That independent panel made recommendations regarding additions ofland to be made to the Yarra Bend Park from the Willsmere land. The Minister was somehow persuaded to introduce proposed legislation, which this is, but the proposals in Schedule 4 do not relate adequately to the recommendations of the independent panel in respect of the land boundary between the Yarra Bend Park and the former Willsmere Hospital reserve land. 1782 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill

I read in the papers-this might come as a surprise to the Minister, who has just returned from overseas-that she is to introduce amendments and that the amendments are to satisfy the City of Kew and have nothing to do with the fact that the Opposition announced that it would not support the boundary proposed in the Bill, nor anything to do with the fact that the honourable member for Kew or one of the honourable members for East Yarra Province in another place announced that they would not support the proposal in the Bill. Apparently the City of Kew is to be regarded as being persuasive with the Minister for Major Projects, who is now persuaded to have amendments introduced during the Committee stage of the Bill with a view to heading off the problems raised by the Opposition. The Opposition will examine the proposed amendments and, if they satisfy it and are in accordance with the recommendations of the independent panel, will probably support them. I personally have some concern why what is regarded as being the exotic-the foreign tree-plantation across the front of the major building ofthe former Willsmere Hospital is in fact being partly handed over from the Yarra Bend Park trust to proposed private developers to be looked after in perpetuity, after some planning arrangements. I do not see how we can be sure a plantation of trees can be looked after carefully and well if it is handed over from public ownership to private ownership, but that is the government proposal and that is what the middle hatching in the Bill is all about. It is part of the park that is being handed over to a potential private developer. I personally do not find that an exciting prospect and I would rather that the whole area be owned by the trust and permanently reserved with a special provision to allow it to be leased to any private developer who might therefore look after the plantation in association with the approved occupation and use of the buildings. The second difficulty that the Opposition has, and I think probably the National Party will have as well, relates to land at Parkville, within the boundary of the University of Melbourne. Part 4 of the Bill refers to what is called "Parkville lands". The Minister was generous in allowing departmental officers to meet with members of the opposition parties and during that meeting' we were told that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne had been spoken to and that what was proposed-the revocation of the reservation on the Veterinary Research Institute land-was to go ahead with the blessing of the vice-chancellor. That was the understanding until one rang the office of the vice-chancellor and spoke to his deputy, who handles these matters with respect to property of the University of Melbourne, and found that there was a flurry of letters between the University of Melbourne and the Treasurer; that the consultation that was said to have taken place was not sufficient or adequate; and that what is proposed in the Bill is that the reservation the university has over the land will be cancelled and the university will then be invited to buy the land and to pay the State of Victoria its full commercial price. In other words, I do not know why a further step is not taken; the remainder of the reservation for the University of Melbourne may as well be cancelled, and the miracle could be worked a few steps more! Why not do it on a giant scale? Perhaps that is the way the government escapes its financial limitations, by apparently cancelling the reservations and offering those who have the use of the reservations the opportunity to buy them. It is most unattractive and unacceptable. I hesitate to say to the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands that unless Part II of the Bill covering boundaries between Yarra Bend Park and Willsmere Hospital, and Part 4 dealing with the Parkville land and the Melbourne University border-now including the even more difficult question concerning the former Queen Victoria hospital building-are sorted out while the Bill is between here and another place, the Bill will not make it through the other place. Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1783

Perhaps those Parts should be deleted to allow passage of the remainder of the Bill because there are few objections to its remaining provisions. There seems to be a terrible misapprehension about the situation involving the Queen Victoria hospital site, and more will be heard about that problem from Opposition members. The women of Victoria raised funds by public appeal associated with the name of Queen Victoria. They purchased their own land under their own freehold; the Peter MacCallum hospital now occupies that site. The women did that with a whole range of appeals in the early and colonial history of Victoria. At a later stage they exchanged their freehold land-so that it could become a specialist cancer hospital-for what is now known as the Queen Victoria hospital site in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. I refer to a letter from the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign. Many letters have been written to the Premier and to the Minister for Health in the other place, and a range of considerations has been canvassed. The approaches are not from the blue-rinse ladies of the Liberal Party, but from a Jewish women's group, from rather radical groups, from conservative women's groups and from the Country Women's Association of Victoria Inc. All have a united purpose-to ask me to extract a reply from the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands as to what will be made available for the women of Victoria. The letter to the Minister for Health in the other place states: Dear Minister, In 1949 the Queen Victoria Hospital exchanged freehold titles to seven allotments ofland on the corner of William and Little Lonsdale streets, and the buildings and equipment associated with that land, in return for the permanent reservation of the former Central Hospital site in Lonsdale Street as well as the use of buildings and equipment associated with that site. There was an exchange; the women were willing to exchange their freehold land­ heaven knows what it would be worth today-which was, in effect, the seven lots in William Street that are now the site of the Peter MacCallum hospital for a permanent reservation of the land which was in past years the site of the Queen Victoria hospital in Lonsdale Street. The letter further states: This exchange was approved by the Health Department at that time. Further, the sum of 88 000 pounds was authorised as compensation to the Queen Victoria Hospital Committee for the loss of the land and improvements on which the Jessie McPherson wing for intermediate patients had been erected, since there was no similar building on the Lonsdale Street site. In other words, they had buildings erected on that Peter MacCallum hospital land honouring the name of Jessie McPherson, and were given 88 000 pounds in 1949 as compensation. The letter further stated: On 19 April 1989 the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill was tabled in Parliament by Kay Setches and Tom Roper. Part 6 (clause 11) of this Bill would revoke the permanent reservation of the Lonsdale Street site, approved of by Cabinet on 11 April 1989, "for the purposes of the Incorporated Institution known as the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital". The Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign now requests that you, as Minister for Health, recommend to Cabinet the return of the freehold titles, buildings and equipment exchanged for this "permanent reservation", ifit is revoked. Since we expect the Bill in question to be debated in the Legislative Assembly this Wednesday, 24 May 1989, we require an immediate reply. That letter is signed by Alison Hoyer, a Joint Convenor, Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign. 1784 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

Many things can be said in gentle praise of the government. Certain funds were made available for women's groups in Victoria's 150th year. Promises were made to establish a women's centre in the Flinders Street railways building. That proposal came to nothing. The money is available, and is being used by the trustees to back certain women's causes, but I say "women's causes" with a rather narrow focus. That is a kindly way of putting it. It is not being unkind to the people concerned, but it does not have a wide focus. The Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign members are asking that part of the site of the former Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital in Lonsdale Street should be made available for the broad ran$e of women's interests in Victoria. Members of the Opposition were told at the bnefing session by representatives of the Victorian Government Major Projects Unit that some arrangements had been made for the women's interests groups to occupy the historic tower buildings; I happily acknowledge that that is not the Minister's fault. I do not know whether you, Madam Acting Speaker, would remember those buildings in your mind's eye; the historic towers are something which should be of appeal to the Historic Buildings Council but do not have an immediate or wide appeal to the women of Victoria on a broad front. The proposed occupation of the buildings was discussed as part of a way of expressing the symbolic association between women and that site, and between women and the Queen Victoria hospital project. I got the impression that it was in their minds that it would be second best, but nevertheless, something. In their approaches to the Premier, the women were directed to have working party meetings. They conducted one such meeting on a Monday morning when they discovered that far from getting the towers, they would receive nothing. They were asked in effect to prove a legal title to the Lonsdale Street site. I have just read something of the background of the shift from their own freehold title site-now the site of the Peter MacCallum hospital-in exchange for a permanent reservation which, under the provisions of the Bill, is to be cancelled. It is to become a non-reservation, so that to ask the women's groups or their representatives to produce title to the land in Lonsdale Street was stupid in the extreme, unnecessary and annoying and, frankly, rather contemptuous of the good sense and ability of the women represented at that meeting. There is no legal title; it is a reservation. If the Bill is passed, the women will have nothing to show for the money they raised in those early days for a specifically named Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital-that is for a women's hospital to be run by women, and something which in this day and age has more than a symbolic interest for them. That group has requested the Liberal Party to delay the passage of the Bill. If the Bill is to be held up, certain consequences flow; lands that are provided for in other clauses of the Bill cannot be exchanged, sold, or whatever, but many of them could sensibly, and without controversy, be dealt with. The sitting was suspended at 6.31 p. m. untU8A p. m. Mr MACLELLAN-I have quoted from a letter written by the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign group to the Minister for Health in another place. I supplement that letter with a further reference to a letter dated 22 May 1989 from that group to the Premier. The letter explains the circumstances of the supposed consultation between the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign group and the government and makes a telling point as to what consultation means under this government. It states: On Monday, 15 May the consultative group of the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign met with representatives from the departments of management and budget, major projects, and the Women's Policy Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1785

Co-ordination Unit, to discuss our proposal for a women's centre to be situated on part of the Queen Victoria Hospital site in Lonsdale Street. Our willingness to consult with your representatives was based on your acknowledgement, made to the deputation you met on Monday, 24 April, that women have an historic and moral claim to the site of the Queen Victoria Hospital, and your undertaking to consult with representatives of the campaign about the future use ofthe three towers facing Lonsdale Street. We came in good faith, more than willing to co-operate with your government to realise a women's centre to benefit the women of Victoria. Women's groups and individuals throughout the State had expressed excitement and commitment about this project, and many innovative and beneficial programs have been discussed. We expected to make the women's centre partially self-funding from the outset, and to have a firm policy of becoming increasingly self-funding and autonomous. By centralising women's information and other resources we could have avoided inefficient duplication; improved communication between women's organisations and groups, individuals, and government departments, and facilitated the enormous capacity women have to help each other. Such a centre would be seen as a great and lasting achievement for any government. No consultation took place on 15 May. Government representatives immediately demanded that the QVHAC give an undertaking not to pursue any legal claim we may have on the site. We were then told that we would "get nothing" even if we have such an undertaking, and there would be no negotiation with developers to include a women's centre on the site~ Your "undertaking" to consult given on 24 April now appears to have been misleading. We now note that legislation to revoke the permanent reservation on the Lonsdale Street site "for the purposes of the Queen Victoria Hospital" will be passed by the Legislative Assembly this week. Was the promise of consultation a stalling tactic to give the government time to revoke the permanent reservation without our protest? The women of Victoria represented by the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign will protest loud and long over this issue if your government continues to ignore our claim to the Queen Victoria Hospital site. I urge you to reconsider. Yours sincerely, Alison Hoyer, Joint Convenor. Copies of that letter were sent to all members of Parliament. That letter should be on the record because it is a clear and unequivocal statement of the hollowness of the government's supposed move to have consultation regarding the claim made by the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign group for special consideration for women in respect of the Queen Victoria hospital site in Lonsdale Street. The long history of this goes back to the last century. The funds raised by Victorian women were specifically to establish a hospital for the treatment of women and children of the poor by women doctors. That was a radical approach at the time but, nevertheless, one that was initiated in Victoria. The hospital started from a church hall, just as many community health centres, for instance, in this day and age do. By 1898 the Minister for Lands at the time was petitioned to grant some Crown land for hospital premises. In 1909 the contributors were recognised as an incorporated body and given one Crown grant. They bought with their own money the seven adjoining sites and erected a hospital that served the people of Victoria, and the women of Victoria in particular, for those many years. Now the women are to be treated with scorn by the government, and the hollowness of the consultation process is shown by the description of their meeting this month. So far as the Opposition is concerned, there are just the remaining days of this week to have the matter sorted out. If the matter is not sorted out, either the relevant clause of the Bill will be removed in another place or the Bill will be opposed. That also applies to the section known as the Parkville lands where, again, if an arrangement is not entered into willingly by negotiation with the University of Melbourne, then the section will go or the Bill will be opposed. There are no two ways about it. 1786 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

The Opposition is not prepared, whether petulant or not, to be told by departmental officers that arrangements have been made in respect of the University of Melbourne, only to discover upon contact with the university that no such arrangements have been made, that the university does not accept the unilateral revocation of the reservation, that it does not accept that it should be required to buy back what is already permanently reserved for its use, and that it does not know and has not had answers to correspondence from the government concerning requests for meetings, briefings, discussions and for a settlement of the matter. So at this late part of the sessional period we are faced with a Bill which has great significance for the government. It is not the fault of the Minister at the table-the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands-and I hasten to say that. She is not to blame for these matters. In the case of Willsmere, it is the fault of the Minister for Major Projects and in regard to Melbourne University it is the fault of the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education and I suppose it is the fault of the Premier himself in the case of the former Queen Victoria hospital site and the great need to deal with that problem. Those three issues are issues between the government and the Opposition. I imagine that the honourable member for Gippsland East, on behalf of the National Party, will be making the National Party's position clear. I hope it sees the problems as I have outlined them. I am not saying that women should have the whole of the Queen Victoria hospital site, I am simply saying that they should not be told they can have a consultation, only to find that it is a sham and no consultation at all. Apparently they have been treated with some disdain by the government instead of being dealt with as intelligent human beings. The Liberal Party protests at the sale of the two sections of the veterinary research institute area at Parkville, which has been doing outstanding work. It has been under the control of Melbourne University and permanently reserved for many years. Simply because the veterinary work is being conducted in new premises is no excuse for saying that the land will be flogged off. You may well be interested in this matter, Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are aware of the move from those premises. The government is suggesting that Melbourne University can buy the land but no real arrangement has been made with the university and I must say it sticks out for anyone to see that if the government is to support a new working class university in the western suburbs of Melbourne, the money for tertiary education will be going in that direction, and Melbourne University will not be funded by the Commonwealth to start buying some pieces of land from the State government. Yet what is the significance of the land? The land is in the middle of the research centre of Victoria. It is the most significant public land in the right spot for us to build on our international reputation for medical and other research. It is not the sort of land one flogs off for a car park or to the nearest developer simply because Melbourne University may not have the funds readily available to meet the pressing financial needs of the government, which wants to flog off every piece of land it can lay its hands on-and according to the government, if that happens to include the Queen Victoria site, then so be it! The government is not concerned that it may put the women of Victoria off side. So far as the government is concerned, that can happen, because it feels it is safely far away from the next election. I assure the government that these changes will not take place with the consent and blessing of the Opposition. The Liberal Party is saying, "You deal with the women's organisations openly and frankly, and we will cooperate". The Liberal Party is saying that the government should not say to these women, "The caucus has decided and the women have lost the vote of the caucus". All I can say is Land (Miscellaneous M alters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1787 that an honorary member of the socialist sorority has arrived on the scene, and if I have to be their champion, I am happy to be so, but win we will and it will be renegotiated or there will be no Bill. The Liberal Party will do a reasonable deal for the University of Melbourne in respect of the land it has reserved and which it has used faithfully and well, and if that deal cannot be struck, the Bill will not proceed. Frankly, this has to be the approach with the government because it transpires that one cannot really trust the story one receives from some sections of the government bureaucracy. Some government members say that conversations have been held, arrangements have been made, understandings have been reached but when one checks one finds that that is not the situation, and that is evidenced in the correspondence from the women's groups, which cover a whole range of women's interests including Jewish women's groups, fairly radical women's groups, and country women's organisations. If the government has managed one thing it has managed to unite the women's organisations of Victoria in a common cause and that common cause is now focused on the Queen Victoria hospital site. The government is a fool to have picked such an argument and to create such a fight and an opportunity for women's groups to show that they mean business. These women make a telling case. The seven blocks of land that they raised shillings to buy-and it was the women's shillings in poor and difficult times in the 1890s­ were part of a deal on which they took the government on trust in the 1940s when they gave their freehold to the government in exchange for a permanent reservation. They now find that the organisation they set up to serve the health needs of the women of Victoria with women doctors as their ambition and hope, has now been wound up and sent out to the south-eastern suburbs as the Monash Medical Centre, which we hear about from time to time, but its whole charter and purpose has changed. It is a suburban medical centre, it is not a women's centre. Mrs Barker-Jessie Mac is still there! Mr MACLELLAN-I am sure the name "Jessie Mac" is still there, but the concept of J essie MacPherson is not there. The concept of health services run by women for women as its primary objective is not there. The Minister says that has changed, but what is now needed, as the Minister will understand, is that whatever changes have occurred since this story began, the change needed now is a change in the attitude of the government. It is not a change in the Opposition's attitude; it is not a change in the views of the National Party, it is a change in the views of the Premier whose arrogance is clear in sending women to a meeting who are then told, "No. 1, you have to give up any legal claims to the site". That is a nice opening gambit. The first thing the women find when they sit down at the conference with the government is that they are told they have to give up all their legal rights. Secondly, the government tells these women, "You get nothing if you don't do that". Then the next thing is, "You have to promise that you will not have any adverse publicity". That would be the next thing to arise. I can read this government like a book. This is the government's idea of consultation-"Behave yourselves and we will give you what we think you ought to have. Stand up for yourself and we will whip a Bill through Parliament so quickly that you will not have anything left by way of rights". The women have contacted the Liberal Party and I am sure they have contacted the National Party, and the university has been contacted by the Opposition, and the 1788 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

Opposition proposes to ensure that, this week, those issues are sorted out by the government or else, so far as we are concerned, those sections of the Bill will not be supported. There are financial implications in the Bill also, and I do not disguise that fact, and we cannot have governments that refuse to honour their words and their undertakings, who refuse to deal decently with people and who refuse to negotiate before the Bills are introduced as they should be, rather than being forced and carried screaming to the negotiating table as part of the Parliamentary process. If that is the way it has to be then the government will be taken screaming to the table by the Parliamentary process, and I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands. I am sure she would wish to resolve this matter. Her Premier has let her down in respect of the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital site; and her colleague, the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education, has let her down in respect of the University of Melbourne land. Her colleague, the Minister for Major Projects, has let her down in respect of the Willsmere Hospital site. It is the same thing again. The independent panel makes the decision about the boundary between the park and the land to be flogged of[ It is another hospital to be flogged of[ It is a constant thing with this government that, while the waiting lists get longer, the government is busy selling the land of the hospital. That is really the key philosophy of the Labor government; there are 26 000 people waiting for surgery, and the government sells hospitals. The government appoints an independent panel which makes a recommendation on the boundary. However, the government then says, "We do not like that; we will move it somewhere else so that we can sell off another seven blocks for about $12 million", irrespective of the values of the public land in the park adjacent to the site. The government is so desperate for money, it would have open mining in the Royal Botanic Gardens if it thought it could get away with it. Members of the government are the money-grubbers at present; they would go for anything. I hope Parliament House is on a permanent reservation; otherwise, Mr Speaker, you will come in one day to find a big "For Sale" notice across the front of the building and someone else will be the landlord. Parliament House would be a first-class site! It could well be that this government would be prepared to sell it to Mr Elliott if he would give the government the money because money is all this government is interested in. There are a few values that are a bit more important: honesty, integrity, the ability to value people as independent human beings and to honour one's word. Those values seem to be more important in respect of the Bill because that is what is needed. There should be more of that and less of the behind the scene manoeuvring by the people who want to flog, sell, and grab and run with whatever they can out of the work of the women of Victoria in respect of the Queen Victoria Hospital site and out of the University of Melbourne, irrespective of the contribution that institution has made to our society and the values of our society and, in addition to that, out of the hospital and public land of Yarra Bend Park with respect to the Willsmere Hospital, just to have a few more blocks to sell. That is the government's guiding measure rather than the independent decision of the panel. The government thought it could get away with it, but it will not do so in this case. I hope our friends in the National Party will see fit to have sensible negotiations so that there is not everything for community groups and nothing for the government, but an honest appreciation of the problems in relation to the Bill. Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1789

The problems in relation to the Bill were raised as part of the process of adjourning the debate on the Bill. It is one of the fundamental strengths of Parliament that debate on Bills is adjourned so that the community is given the opportunity to be consulted and to consult with members of Parliament on these issues so we can ~et the message from the people about what ought to be done and have less of the legIslative sausage factory which is so often the inspired approach of the government. Proposed legislation is often introduced late in the sessional period with inadequate periods ofadjournment of the debate. The government says, "We have to pass the Bill before the end of the sessional period-hurry, hurry, hurry". If that is the case I think this Bill might have to be kept until August, and perhaps the developers will have to be kept waiting. Perhaps the agents will have to be kept waitin~ and the auction signs will have to stay in the shed for a few months, because satisfaction is what we want on these issues or the Bill will not go ahead. It is a blow for the women of Victoria and the University of Melbourne and a blow for proper planning in regard to public parks and public planning processes. That is what we are standing for and that is what we are saying with great firmness to this Minister. We are with her in her negotiations with her Ministerial colleagues. We back the Minister the whole way. We wish her well in her negotiations with the Premier, with the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education and with the Minister for Major Projects. We say to the Minister: "Good luck" and we will do our best to make sure she is the one responsible for getting the right deal, the right settlement, and for getting the claims properly analysed. That will be the approach of the Opposition on the Bill. I signal to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House that this sort of approach seems to be appropriate in a Parliamentary sense with proposed legislation of this kind. It is the people's land we are speaking about, and it is our obli~ation to them that should be guiding us, not whether the Treasurer or some other MInister can flog offland so that he can get more money to use on his pet projects. Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-One of the most remarkable achievements in the early days of white settlement in this country was the tremendous amount of survey work that was carried out by the early surveyors who had the rather huge task of surveying land right throughout the full len$th and breadth of the State and, in the process, making provision for public facilities of various kinds-particularly if we bear in mind that the principal activity in this surveying area was conducted some 30 or 40 years before the advent of the motor car. I think the surveyors of the very early days showed a remarkable degree offoresight in the laying out of major towns and cities and in the reservation of roads and recreation areas over the length and breadth of the State. Of course, with all the wisdom and foresight at their disposal, obviously there were and have been over the years, situations where not so much mistakes were made but where there was a need for variation of the original proposal. Basically, so far as I can ascertain, what has happened is that, virtually on an annual basis, Parliament has had before it various amendments, usually in a Bill that contains quite a large number of minor variations, where Crown land is exchanged, sold or altered in some way to accommodate changes that have become necessary through the eftluxion of time. To the best of my recollection, over the years in my time in this place, these amendments have been made by mutual agreement with the parties on the adjoining land or the municipalities or whatever groups of citizens may perhaps be involved in exchanges of land of this kind. However, we have on this occasion, as was quite 1790 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill properly pointed out by the honourable member for Berwick-and I compliment him on the forceful way in which he outlined his case in respect of three provisions in the Bill-what almost smacks of the su~estion that the proposed lepslation has been put before Parliament in the hope that It might sneak through as beIng one of the normal Bills for the exchange or variation of Crown land reservations which, in most respects, are treated fairly routinely in their passage through Parliament. On behalf of the National Party, I strongly support the point of view expressed by the honourable member for Berwick, although I cannot resist the temptation to recall the situation some years ago where there was another group of people who had land which they believed was theirs for all time because it was land that had been permanently reserved for the use and benefit of Aboriginal people. However, the Liberal Party, unfortunately, at the time, totally rejected any suggestion that that reservation ought to be honoured as a system of title to the land which, in my view, was the most secure form of tenure any organisation or group of people could possibly hope to get in our type of society. One would have thought that a guarantee that a group of people had the use and benefit of a specific parcel of land as a permanent reservation for that purpose should have been an absolute and watertight guarantee for all time. I am referring to the Aboriginal Lands Act of 1970. The government of the day resisted pleas to retain the land for that purpose. If it was appropriate to convey land to Aboriginal people, other land should have been chosen rather than land that all Aborigines sincerely and earnestly believed was theirs for all time. Instead, of course, the government converted those two areas of land to freehold title. Bearing that in mind, it is important to reflect that even in recent times this House has taken steps to endeavour to tie up areas of public land for all time. Fortunately, the Bill makes it evident that Parliament does not have that authority. In the case of the former Queen Victoria hospital land, it was the intention of the reservation at that time that that land would remain for all time as a recognition of the efforts of the women of Victoria in years gone by in raising funds to create the facilities that were constructed on the land. It was believed that the land was permanently reserved for their benefit. We are tonight showing that any effort to reserve land permanently for any particular purpose cannot be successful and that any Parliament in the future has the right to change it. I hope when Parliament starts drawing lines on maps and calling areas national parks and wildernesses and the like that it does not think it has more wisdom than anybody in the past and more wisdom than generations in the future. I hope generations in the future will make the most appropriate use of land and, in doing so, honour obligations and undertakings that have been given over the years about the rights of certain citizens to particular areas of land. The National Party supports the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Berwick. We find it extraordinary and appalling, having received the letter from the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign only this morning, to read about the treatment that those women have received at the hands of the Victorian government. I hope in her remarks later in the debate the Minister will be able to qualify what has been said because those remarks are contrary to the claims made by the Premier inside and outside the House over many years about his desire to give a fair go to the women in our community. With regard to the University of Melbourne land, the position is entirely different. Why does the government wish to change the reservation of this area? As I said before, in many cases changes have been made over the years for the purpose of the readjustment of boundaries or the alteration of road alignments and so on. I do not Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1791 recall many instances where changes in reservations have been made purely for the purpose of flogging off the land. In the main, these have come before the Parliament with any amount of evidence to demonstrate that the change was by mutual agreement. In this case, there is no evidence of that, as the honourable member for Berwick has clearly demonstrated. The Minister has some explaining to do to counter the aq~ument put forward by the honourable member for Berwick. Obviously the UniversIty of Melbourne was not consulted. I endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Berwick. We were jointly briefed on the Bill and were given assurances that the university had been consulted. I am absolutely astonished to find that that was not the case. I am not familiar with the land at Kew dealt with in the Bill, although it is obvious that once again a situation has arisen where the government is scraping the bottom of the barrel for its finances and is flogging off the assets of the State wherever it can possibly find justification in its own mind. What might be justification in the mind of the government is not necessarily justification in the minds of the people, because the public land of this State is an asset that belongs to all the people. Because I am one who argues from time to time that we have to make public land available for private purposes in various situations and also as one whose electorate comprises 75 to 80 per cent of public land anyway, this is a matter of considerable interest to me. The government seems to be more than ready to flo$ off public land in the metropolitan area. However, if one tries to get hold of a bIt of land in a rural area, where there are vast areas of public land, it is a different kettle of fish. Mr Mac1ellan interjected. Mr EVANS-As a keen lawn bowler I am conscious of the situation that applies to many bowling clubs situated on Crown land in small country communities. The government seems to have the intention of either forcing these small clubs to close because of high rents or of making them pay large sums of money to buy the land on which their facilities are situated. The National Party supports the contention put forward by the honourable member for Berwick and will back the Opposition in another place if that proves to be necessary to ensure that the government carries out fair and proper negotiations with the groups that have expressed concern to us about these three provisions in the Bill. A number of other provisions in the Bill relate to normal situations and are acceptable. They are non-controversial and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, have been brought forward with the mutual agreement of adjoining landowners or public authorities involved in the management of the specific parcels of land. Other honourable members with more direct knowledge of individual areas in the State will no doubt comment on them. However, I endorse the stand taken by the honourable member for Berwick and I trust that the government will listen to reason and negotiate fairly and equitably with the groups of people that have expressed interest in the three parcels of land to which I have referred. Dr WELLS (Dromana)-The Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill continues a number of undesirable characteristics shown by this government on previous occasions. I want to add my voice to comments made by both the Liberal and National parties about these important matters. Not only do they show important particular matters in which the government is failing badly the people but they also point to matters of principle on which the government has failed before and has not obviously learnt by now. I refer to the three sections which have been mentioned by previous speakers. I hope other speakers will take up other sections of the Bill. The parts about which 1792 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M aUers) Bill

I know something are the Veterinary Research Institute, Parkville, the former Queen Victoria hospital land and the Yarra Bend Park land. I want to deal with them separately. The Veterinary Research Institute land under clauses 7 and 8 amount, as I see it in the Bill, to the government making this land full normal commercial land, unalienated. It is moving out its own section of the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Affairs­ the Veterinary Research Institute-and then forcing the University of Melbourne to purchase at full market price land in an absolutely prime commercial position or else lose the land from university and research purposes. It seems to me, Sir, in so many ways this gives the lie to the government's professed good intentions about education, research, agriculture, commitment to technology, to exports and so on. In all of these areas, to which the government gets up and makes ~and public announcements concerning its theoretical commitment, it then goes on In a nasty, shabby, cheap trick, in my view, and says, not to commerce but to a university and to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, "Well, we do not care what you say. We want our pound of flesh. If you want the site to continue with, you must pay for it, not as it has been for 70 years, a restricted site for education and research purposes, but as a full commercial site because we are changing its designation". I raised this matter in this place at an earlier time when referring to the Point Nepean National Park. Point Nepean National Park, that which the Premier opposite claimed to be the jewel in our Bicentennial year and which is in my electorate, is the national park which this government and its colleagues in Canberra wanted to sell off in part on the priceless clifftop land at the entrance way, for $10 million as a land subdivision to get money. What for? To pay from the State government to the Federal government for the wonderful right to transfer the rest of the land from Federal government supervision on behalf of the people to State government supervision on behalf of the people of Victoria. We would have to sell off irreplaceable land to do that, and I have said before in this place, it is a nonsense, and it is time the governments throughout Australia transferred land from one government to another as a book entry because, after all, it belongs to the people and it is for the service of the people. And here we look at the same principle, which is that this State government says, "Look, we are moving our State responsibility, our direct State responsibility, for a Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs diagnostic centre out of that area of land. What is left, then, we are going to force another State cum Commonwealth but, importantly, a people's institution, to buy the land to have it to continue to do what they have been doing with it on behalf of the people of Australia and beyond for the last three quarters of a century". And that, Sir, is hypocrisy and dishonesty in the extreme so far as I am concerned, and I peddle no party barrow on this. I peddle, if anything, the barrow of the people, the barrow of education, the barrow of youth, that this government professes to stand for and to serve so much better, they claim, than the opposition parties. I recall, Mr Speaker, Sir-or then Mr-Henry Bolte, Premier Henry Bolte, speaking on this site in 1965, because I was there at the time; I had returned from En~and to work again in Australia, and members opposite may not know that on that site there are several very large, very expensive buildings, and one of them was built for the University of Melbourne's reconstituted school of veterinary science and it cost a lot of money in those days-a seven figure sum, a lot more today-and there had been a case where, in fact, in the planning for the reconstituted school, which had been the first veterinary school in Australia, funds had run short. Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1793

The Premier of the day, Bolte, put his hand in his pocket and found another $300 000 so that we could be on time with the project, ready to go to do the teaching for veterinary surgeons who were in great need in this country at that time, and still are, and are throughout the world because veterinary graduates from Australian universities grace the world in their professional capacity. Here was Bolte, to whom members opposite would say, Hyou did such a terrible job in this State until we got to office". He said, "Education is important and I will see my government does its bit for that purpose". What is this government opposite today doing? They are saying, "We don't give a damn about what you are saying you need with education and the University of Melbourne school of veterinary science. We might want to do something elsewhere in Victoria", and I might say I commend that, Mr Acting Speaker, as the honourable member for Dromana, but what I cannot stomach is them then saying, "We don't care about this particular university". Is it because it is the oldest university in this State? Is it because they think there is enough money there that they can squeeze a little more out of the coffers of the university, which it has been using in keeping other vital things functioning. We know State and Federal funds have never been tighter since 1966, since Sir Robert Menzies retired, than they are today. We know that State and Federal governments are forcing more and more students into the same physical facilities with the same teaching staff and requiring more and more to be done, and yet in the process they are saying, "And you can still find what undoubtedly would be a seven figure sum if you want that site to continue". Mr Acting Speaker, I put it to you: what is the University of Melbourne to do? Is it to walk away from a very expensive building on the site because it cannot afford to pay for the land, or will it diminish its other activities somehow? Of course, it has got to hang on to the site. Of course, when it comes down to the government opposite's commitment to higher education, to research, to technology in the late twentieth century Australia, its so-called professed commitment to export boosting and so forth-and, Mr Acting Speaker, I am delighted as a member of the Opposition to know that this will not be permitted to happen-there is no question, no government, no Parliamentarian, can justify this action which is, in a sense, a form of theft of the people's assets, and I will go on to illustrate that point in the other cases, too. The Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital land under clauses 11 and 12-1 really fail to understand how a government could, at this time when we have such a deficiency in medical and hospital facilities in this State, claim to be workin~ on behalf of the people by closing down a major centrally placed hospital that servIces all the people of Victoria through the great central city of Melbourne. Transport to that site is not bettered by any other hospital site in the State of Victoria. What is the ideological reason why that site must be closed down? The government opposite was the first to voluntarily acknowledge that they inherited from the previous Liberal governments a hospital system second to none in the nation of Australia. They made all sorts of promises and yet down the track, six or seven years, we find the waiting list is three or four times what it was, and we keep getting all sorts of excuses for what is happening. The fact of the matter is that the hospital system and the medical system in this State, because of State-controlled reasons in large part, is in chaos and is failing the people; and it must, by definition, be that if you close down a major hospital you will exacerbate that situation. I am not surprised at all that the women of Victoria have now taken to the protest movement on this matter themselves, and the government opposite should realise that when the women really get worked up on something they Session 1989-58 1794 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill do not fool around-they will get on with the job, and this government will pay the price if they continue in this way. Of course, the government is fortunate in a way electorally because, down the track, in three years time, they will not have the criticism placed upon them that they closed the hospital down because, in fact, the Opposition will not permit this to happen. The Yarra Bend Park is another interesting illustration, in clauses 22 to 26, of this government's commitment to conservation and all the rest. Does the government not realise the steady growth in the capital city of Melbourne will mean that in 50, 100 or 200 years time we will have a population that is not 3 million, but perhaps 6 or 9 million? Can the government opposite say with confidence that that will not happen? I would not think any honourable member can say that. What we can say with much greater confidence is that once you pour concrete on the site it is-for practical purposes, so far as human estimation can go-gone forever; it will not be back as a green site. That, I submit, is the real importance of the proposal about the Yarra Bend Park land that could have been added to the park from Willsmere. The fact is that we have the opportunity now of holding on to a small area ofa green site and adding it to the sites that can be used by people. Ifwe pour concrete on it, it will be gone forever. It is the same as what happened at the Point Nepean National Park, where the government grabbed the money and ran. The tragedy is, as I alluded to earlier, in each of these cases, the government is destroying a long-term-perhaps a permanent­ asset of the people for a short-term capital gain. The government will take the money and fritter it away as it has frittered away other money each year. The same thing will happen as could have happened at Point Nepean. The money could be wasted on committees or on the extra interest bill, just as the government has already wasted money since coming to office. It could be wasted on the inefficient transport system in Victoria. There are all these things, and in the case of parkland it is gone forever. That is the long-term tragedy of what the government is proposing to do in all these cases. It should be yelled from the roofiops in terms of the education of our youth, in terms of the economic progress of the people in the future, in terms of the health of our people, and in terms of the long-term recreation and sanity of our people in the increasing concrete and asphalt jungle of the future: that in each of these areas the government is prepared to take the easy option, the deceptive, undesirable, and indeed the dishonest option of grabbing its 30 pieces of silver and running, no matter what the cost. I speak with great empathy about the Veterinary Research Institute site in Parkville. The others I know less well, although I have spent years in the area and an equal part of my time in each area. One cannot be in this part of the world without knowing of these sites. The government is extreme in its actions and in the provisions of the Bill. I am utterly delighted to hear my shadow Minister say that we will not permit this to happen, and I add my weight and strength to that. I shall make jolly sure that the University of Melbourne and others are fully aware of the provisions of the Bill. I hope the government will pay the extreme electoral price for these sorts of actions, which are illustrative of so much of its real philosophy. That philosophy, as the shadow Minister said, involves a lack of consultation. In these cases there was not true consultation. The "con" in consultation is the real philosophical backbone of this government opposite: it tries to rush in here with botched, second­ rate proposed legislation and push it through, without talking to the people really concerned. I am delighted to know that in this case the government will not get away with it. Land (Miscellaneous M aUers) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1795

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I support the position outlined by the honourable member for Berwick in respect of the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill. I have an interest of a kind in this matter in that I represent this Parliament on the council of the University of Melbourne. That gives me a particular interest in the provisions of the Bill as they concern the veterinary science precinct of the University of Melbourne. I find the position quite disturbing. I place on the record my concern about it and the tenor of the negotiations conducted between the university and the government. They raise a set of questions which appear to be all too typical of the questions raised about the government's dealing with land over which it has some rights and which it regards as surplus to its own requirements. The government apparently thinks it can sell the land and raise some money, irrespective of the genuine interests of those directly involved. It is perhaps not putting it too highly to say that the university has been protesting for some time about the inadequacy of the consultation conducted with it. The university has a direct interest in the veterinary science precinct, where it has operated for many decades. As I said, the university has been concerned about the lack of consultation by the government. I find it extraordinary that the Bill has been introduced to the House tonight when negotiations are still pending. Indeed, following discussions conducted only this week, the university had further consultation with representatives of the Department of Property and Services and the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands and a proposition has been discussed as a possible basis of settlement. The university is awaiting a response from the government on the proposal. I have been acquainted with the proposal only recently. As a member ofthe university council, I have some concern about the proposal in that it may be inadequate in protecting the interests of the university's access to parts Band C of the site, of which the university has long made use. The university also has a potential interest in part A of the site, although it has been conceded to the government that on historical grounds the university would not have a claim to part A of the site. That matter must be examined because the university has also put to the government that it may be desirable to examine the definition of various parts of the site. There may be a need to redefine the boundaries of parts A, Band C to more appropriately reflect the uses of this site. Correspondence concerning the matter goes back to late 1988, when the university expressed its concern at the proposed removal of the reservation and sought as a preliminary measure that there be negotiations in an attempt to protect the longstanding reservation so that the site might be available for university purposes in general and for veterinary science in particular. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne wrote to the Minister for Property and Services on 10 May 1989, among other things stating: The university wishes to express its extreme concern that the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill is before State Parliament and includes a clause to revoke the current Crown grant on the veterinary precinct without the assurances requested in my letter of 2 March 1989 being given. While the University has not to date opposed revocation of the reservations on the site, this was on the understanding that the university would be given absolute assurance as to our continuing use ofthe parts ofthe site currently occupied (parts Band C on the plan) ... The university has made it clear that once that question is resolved, it expects the government to transfer the whole of parts Band C to the university by way of freehold title. Given that the university has received no communication whatsoever from the Minister for Property and Services, much less the assurances sought, I must urge the removal of this section of the legislation until the university receives a guarantee that its future occupancy of the site has been adequately protected. 1796 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

The vice-chancellor goes on to request that the government respond to the conditions set out in his letter of 2 March 1989. He outlines what the university then sought: (i) a temporary reservation over parts Band C of the site for university purposes; (ii) an unequivocal assurance from the government that it accepts the university's right to at least one­ half of the whole site (by virtue of its present ownership with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs); and (iii) assurance that the government will enter in good faith into negotiations with the university over the remaining 14 per cent of the site which would make up parts Band C, after valuation in the terms expressed in my 2 March letter. The terms of the letter are remarkable. The university is, of course, a polite and diplomatic body. It is surprising that Professor Penington, a man whom no-one could regard as a radIcal, could use such language to express the university's concern and should go so far as to suggest, in writing in an official communication, that that part of the Bill should be withdrawn. In the circumstances, if the government wishes to proceed with the Bill this week, it should preserve the status quo as regards this disputed site and the other issues raised by the honourable member for Berwick. As a result of further dialogue-in the main prompted by the university­ representatives of the university have only recently met with representatives of the Department of Property and Services and the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. As a result a proposal has been made, the substance of which, as I understand it, is as follows: that Melbourne University would obtain parts Band C of the site; that it would be prepared to admit that on historical grounds it has no claim to part A; that the university seeks a permanent reservation in relation to parts Band C, plus a redefinition of the boundaries as appropriate; and that the university would be prepared to grant 21-year rolling leases to the Commonwealth ScientIfic and Industrial Research Organisation in relation to areas currently used by that organisation. As I understand it, the government's preference is that the existing Bill is passed so that a new Act can be proclaimed. All of those factors would be put on the basis that no financial detriment of any type should be suffered by the university. Although the ~overnment owns part of the site and the university has paid no rent for the use of it, In fact the university has had effective control of at least parts Band C for many years. The Opposition has not had an opportunity of fully consulting with the university about this matter. That has occurred because of the way the government has handled the matter and because ofthe uncertainty that exists at present concerning this proposal. I must say-and I do not say this lightly-that I do not trust the government. The university should not accept the government's assurances, assurances that are not backed up by written undertakings or binding commitments. The government is in the process of selling off everything it can get its hands on. A massive asset sale program is in train. A special task force has been established and has been operating for a considerable time. The amount the government aims to realise by such asset sales has increased dramatically from year to year. The Opposition can only speculate about what the government will do when further financial restraint is imposed by the Federal government. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mr STOCKDALE-Why not sell Parliament House and either lease it back or allow it to be used by some welfare organisation? Mr Maclellan-Tricontinental would buy it! Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1797

Mr STOCKDALE-The government cannot be trusted. In m¥ electorate a public park has been owned by the Ministry of Education for some tIme. That land was offered to the Brighton City Council. The terms offered by the government were, if that land were not taken up by the council for use as public open space, it would be offered to either the Ministry of Housing and Construction or to the highest bidder. That is all too typical of the government's conduct in recent times. Bowling clubs that are situated on Crown land, land that has been used for recreational purposes for decades, may be sold by the ~overnment, because it is threatening to either sell the land from under the bowlIng clubs or to revise the valuation of that land and charge a market rent based on that value. Honourable members will be aware of the government's threat to sell the land from under railway tenants, and property improvements would pass with the land even though those tenants own the improvements they have made to the land. The House, the people of Victoria and, in this case, Melbourne University, cannot trust the government because it is desperate for cash. I am not prepared to recommend to the university that it accepts anything other than the most secure protection of its rights. The maintenance of the status quo is the best protection of those rights. The onus is on the government to satisfy the university's objections and to put it in a position where it can be sure that its existing rights and its access to the benefits of that land are beyond question, so far as the conduct of the veterinary precinct is concerned. The university should not accept anything less. That is the least that the government could do for the university. The Minister should accept her responsibility and guarantee the provision of those conditions. As the university has had that land under its management and control for some time now, land free from any government rent or other impost, why can the government not transfer the title to the land to the university? That would be a satisfactory solution. If the government is seeking tidiness or neatness-if the government wants the people who use the land to own the land-why not transfer the title to the university at no cost? We could not trust the government if it embarked on any other course. The Opposition seeks the opportunity of consulting with the university; certainly, further negotiation should take place. The circumstances surrounding this and other matters in the Bill lead me to question why the government is embarking on the course on which the Bill takes it. I can think of only one reason. Using the veterinary precinct at Melbourne University as an example, one can speculate that the Valuer-General is prepared to value the land on the basis that it is subject to permanent reservation for university purposes. The land would be of little value to anyone other than the university; the market value would represent what the university would be prepared to pay for the land. The removal of the reservation provision can have no other purpose than to allow the Valuer-General to fix a valuation based on the market value of that land, were the land to be put on the open market and sold to a property developer-with all improvements passing with the title-and free from the reservation. No doubt many developers would be happy to buy that land at a price the university could not afford, just as many developers are prepared to buy railway land, including improvements made by existing tenants. Why should the university have to threaten to bulldoze the veterinary science school and other buildings on the site-just as the occupiers of railway land have threatened similar action-in order to obtain a better deal from the government? The only justification for the removal of the reservation would be to alter the market value of the land to enable the government to confront the university with an offer that it could not refuse-like a horse's head left bleeding 1798 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M aUers) Bill in the vice-chancellor's bed. The university would either have to buy the land or run the risk of losing the veterinary science precinct to a developer, who could buy the land and the buildings and offer to lease them back to the university. The government should not be allowed to use Parliament to distort the university's priorities, to appropriate money from the university or to threaten the continued existence of the veterinary science school. Ifthe government has some other justification for the course it proposes to take, I invite the Minister, who appears to be completely oblivious to the debate, to explain that purpose. She should give the House an assurance that this measure is not an attempt to affect the Valuer-General's valuation of the land. If the Minister cannot satisfy the House, her best course would be to delete this and other matters of contention from the Bill and to allow the uncontested parts of the Bill to be passed, if that is the will of both Houses. Dr NAPTHINE (Portland)-I support the points made by the honourable member for Berwick, who spoke eloquently on the Bill. The Bill contains a number of issues that are of concern. One issue raised by the honourable member for Berwick and reiterated by the honourable members for Dromana and Brighton concerns the consultation process involved in the sale of the land. The word "consultation" should be put in inverted commas, because what Opposition members are talking about is a lack of consultation. The changes proposed by the Bill are significant. In clause 7 the Bill provides for the revocation of reservations on land that have existed for many decades. Reservations have been placed on land for good and proper purposes by our forebears who had the foresight to set aside land for veterinary research and university teaching purposes and for the Queen Victoria hospital, which addresses many major health issues affecting women. The revocation of these reserves should be undertaken with consideration and planning. It is necessary for such action to be taken in a careful and cautious manner. There is no need for undue haste. I agree that the government of the day has every right to review the use to which land is put. However, when these reviews are undertaken it is important that all parties concerned have adequate time to consider the proposals and to put forward their points of view. Honourable members have referred to cases where people have not had the opportunity of putting forward their points of view. The honourable member for Brighton, who is a member of the University of Melbourne council, made it clear that the university was not involved in adequate negotiation or consultation. Mr Maclellan-Shabby! Dr NAPTHlNE-lt has been dealt a shabby hand in this deal. Information obtained from women's groups associated with the Queen Victoria hospital reveals that they also have been dealt a shabby hand in this consultation process. It is another instance of the government's Clayton's consultation. The government's consultation is more about con than about talking openly to people to achieve a better result for Victorians. I am pleased that the shadow spokesman for the Liberal Party has taken a responsible stand. Mr Maclellan-And the National Party. Dr NAPTHINE-Both the Liberal Party and the National Party have taken a responsible stand in this Chamber and will not allow Parliament and the people of Victoria to be treated in such a way. I recall other instances where the government has been involved in this Clayton's consultation. Recently a Bill to establish the Dergholm State Park was introduced and debated in this House. To my surprise I discovered that the first the local municipality-the Shire of Glenelg-had heard of the proposal Land (Miscellaneous M alters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1799 was when I sent it a copy of the Bill. The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands has again failed in this consultation process. Earlier the honourable member for Brighton referred to some land in the electorate that he represents where the government was again dealing a shabby hand to local people. I refer the House to land in the City of Portland that was set aside for elderly citizens units to be built. The former Ministers for housing, Mr Frank Wilkes and Mr lan Cathie, with their pictures in the local newspaper, promised elderly citizens units and government money to build them. Some two years later not only are the elderly citizens units not there but also the government is saying it is no longer interested in building them. However, the government is more than happy for the City of Portland to build the units provided the municipality purchases the land at the Valuer-General's valuation. What a joke! That is typical of the consultation experienced with this Bill. I have specific concern about clause 7. At present the land is reserved for veterinary research and for university teaching of veterinary science. As a graduate of the University of Melbourne, and having had the honour of attending that veterinary pre­ clinical centre and working with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, I have a deep understanding of and interest in this site. The land is currently used as the University of Melbourne's veterinary school's pre­ clinical teaching centre. Veterinary undergraduates spend the first three years of their training at the veterinary pre-clinical centre at Parkville on land used by the Veterinary Research Institute before transferring to Werribee for the final two years of their clinical teaching. The honourable member for Dromana was a lecturer in pathology on this site. He lectured me and also the Speaker of the House. In some respects it may have been a difficult task for the honourable member for Dromana, but he had the pleasure of lecturing at the institute to both of us. The honourable member for Dromana advised me that the Bolte government was responsible for providing considerable sums of money to reopen the veterinary school in Victoria. I recall looking through my father's papers many years ago and discovering a cheque butt referring to a donation of 1 pound and 1 shilling-a guinea-as a farmer's contribution to the Melbourne University veterinary school. Many donations collected from the farming community were spent on that veterinary research and teaching site which the government now proposes to sell back to the University of Melbourne. The site is also used for a significant amount of research in veterinary science undertaken by the University of Melbourne. I am reminded of some of the great work done by Dr Michael Studdert who is a world expert in virology. His work on viral research on horses, dogs, cats and poultry is world renowned and was undertaken on this University of Melbourne site. A group at the university is also working on gene transfer technology in sheep. This important biotechnology in sheep industry research is likely to be worth many millions of dollars to the State. Also on that site is the Veterinary Research Institute which is operated by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. It is certainly an historical research institute that has done wonders for agriculture in Victoria. It was initially the only veterinary research and diagnostic institute in Victoria. The institute is being relocated to the Attwood site at Westmeadows. I am delighted that it is being relocated and rehoused to make more land available for the expanding needs ofthe veterinary school on the Parkville site. However, honourable members should carefully examine what the University of Melbourne is being asked to pay through the nose for the site. 1800 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

Also on this important site is the CSIRO's Animal Research Laboratory. Dr Norman Anderson, who is also a world renowned researcher in internal parasites, particularly of sheep and cattle, has done much of his research at that institute. All honourable members should recognise the importance of such research. Some people may ask why is it important for a veterinary research unit to be in the centre of Melbourne. It is important because veterinary researchers need contact with other researchers in the biotechnology areas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the University of Melbourne benefit from interaction among themselves as a veterinary group and also with other researchers in related medical fields. One has only to look at the site to see that it adjoins the Royal Melbourne Hospital, which is not only a service hospital but also a research hospital. Nearby is the Royal Children's Hospital, which has a significant research component, and joint projects are often undertaken between medical researchers and veterinary researchers. The site also adjoins the main campus of the University of Melbourne. It is a unique site of major biotechnological research, and it must be preserved as such. The site is essential for veterinary teaching. The demand for veterinary graduates is increasing and the number of advertisements for veterinarians in the journal of the Australian Veterinary Association is at an all-time high. Surveys within the veterinary profession have found that there is a significant need for more veterinary graduates. The demand for students entering veterinary science is at a high level and there is certainly a need for training places for veterinary undergraduates. As I said, the Veterinary Research Institute lands are the site for pre-clinical training of veterinary graduates, who receive training in physiolo~y, biochemistry, anatomy, pharmacology and parasitology. It is a major teachlng centre for veterinary undergraduates and houses an essential component of the course. It must be maintained as such. What will clause 7 do to the teaching and research institute? I put it that the institute will be placed under threat. Clause 7 removes the reservation and Crown grant for the Veterinary Research Institute at Parkville. It removes the reservation for the land to be used for veterinary science research and teaching. The effect will be to significantly increase the value of the land. Why would the government want to increase the value of the land if not to flog it to the highest bidder? The Bill puts the University of Melbourne in an untenable situation. The university needs the land for veterinary teaching and research, yet the government is removing the reservation that specifies that use for the land. How will the land be sold? There is no guarantee that the University of Melbourne will have the first right of refusal. I understand that two-thirds of the site may go to the university, but one-third is to be used as a car park. The site is in the centre of a biotechnological research area, and the government maintains that biotechnological research is important for the growth and development of Victoria. One of the government's key economic goals is biotechnological research, yet the government is throwing out this land to be sold for use as a car park. The University of Melbourne needs to use all the money it has-it does not have a lot-for research and teaching. They are the priorities of the university; it should not have to spend its money to buy land to bolster this decrepit government's economic situation. The University of Melbourne must devote its attention and its resources to teaching and research. The land is currently being used for those purposes and there is no need to change except for this government's desire to obtain additional money from the university to help pay its increasing debt and to finance its bankrupt schemes. Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1801

The government claims to be interested in young people; it claims to be encouraging young people to undertake further education, but the Bill shows that to be untrue. The government is prepared to force the University of Melbourne to stop spending money on providing additional places for students and additional research to help the economy of the country but to spend money to buy back land which is currently used for research and the teaching of veterinary science. The university is being forced to buy the land from the very government that is supposed to be helping it. The Bill makes an absolute mockery of the government's commitment to young people and its supposed commitment to providing increased access to tertiary education. I support the efforts of the honourable member for Berwick in informing the government that the Opposition will not accept the situation and that it demands that the proper consultation processes are followed. Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-The female members of the Labor Party must have been pleased when they heard the honourable member for Berwick say that the Opposition would oppose the sale of the former Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital site unless the government enters into new negotiations before the end of this week. The opposition that has been brought to the attention of the Liberal Party from women's groups in Melbourne over the sale of the former Queen Victoria hospltal site is amazinB. Those women feel strongly that the government is trying to sell off for between $60 million and $90 million one of the most prestigious institutions in Melbourne. The Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital, as it was known then, was set up by women in the latter part of the last century. The government now has the audacity to attempt to sell off the hospital and use the money it receives for consolidated revenue. I am reliably informed that the female members of the Labor Party opposed the sale of the site but they were outvoted in the party room. Those women would have been delighted to hear that the Liberal and National parties will oppose the sale of the site, because they know the value of it. If the money from the sale were to be used to improve the health of women in Victoria, the Liberal and National parties would support the government, but the money will not be used in that way. The money will be directed to consolidated revenue, as will the money from the sale of other lands covered in the Bill. It will be used to finance the government's massive debts. The women of Victoria are outraged at the sale of the former Queen Victoria hospital site. The money from the sale should be used to honour the historic contribution of women. As I said, their efforts to raise money for the hospital began in the late 1890s. The government, in its desire to finance its extremely dubious projects, has decided that this well-known landmark will be sold and the money will go directly into consolidated revenue. The Liberal and National parties are vocal and sincere in their support of women, unlike members of the Labor Party who make noises about supporting women but who, when their female colleagues oppose a measure, such as the sale of the former Queen Victoria hospital site, vote them down. Members of the Opposition will follow the dictates of our free enterprise philosophy: we will oppose the Bill unless the government enters into negotiations within the next week to ensure that the money from the sale of the former Queen Victoria hospital site will go towards projects to benefit the health of women in this State. It gives the Opposition much pleasure to direct the attention of the House to this anomaly. It is, as I say, one that has caused female groups in the State to be outraged. It is enough to cause the female members of the Labor Party to be outraged. They 1802 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill know the damage that this information coming to the public attention will cause. However, the party machine said, "No, we need the money. The money must be spent on our projects. We will not in any way consider putting the money into projects that will benefit the health of women". Therefore, we will oppose this particular aspect unless the government comes to its senses while the Bill is between here and another place or, during the negotiations with the Minister, we are given the assurance that the money will not go into consolidated revenue but will be directed towards the benefit of women, particularly in the health area. We contend that the money, the asset itself, which over the years has appreciated greatly in value, should continue to be used for the benefit of the women of Victoria. Mrs WADE (Kew)-This Bill revokes a number of permanent reservations of Crown land. I am not familiar with all of the pieces of land which are covered by the Bill but two pieces of land are of concern to me. One is the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital site and the other is the Willsmere Hospital boundary with the Yarra Bend Park. I can recall in my schooldays, which were a long time ago, a lot of talk about Melbourne being a great city of the nineteenth century. A great deal of discussion ensued about the destruction of the Paris end of Collins Street and about buildings in Spring Street destroying the character of one of the world's great nineteenth century cities. I did not appreciate what that discussion was all about. I had not travelled at all then and I thought there must be other cities in this great big world which were at least equivalent to or probably better than Melbourne. I really did not understand the debate. Since then I have travelled fairly extensively and it has come home to me what was meant by the people who spoke of Melbourne as a great nineteenth century city. Melbourne is one of the great cities that were built during the latter part of the nineteenth century and also during the early part of this century. Melbourne is epitomised by its Victorian and Edwardian buildings, not only in the city itself but also in the suburbs surrounding the city out through the middle of suburban Melbourne. Those suburbs contain acres and acres of Victorian and Edwardian buildings. Without that building period in Melbourne we would have a totally different city. Probably the only thing that would remain would be the Melbourne climate as a characteristic of this great city of ours! The building boom of the gold rush and the later boom of the early Edwardian period is what characterises Melbourne even today. Willsmere Hospital, which of course is in my electorate ofKew, epitomises the Victorian building period, the wealth of the gold rush period and the faith that people had in the future of Melbourne in those days. The Queen Victoria hospital is an Edwardian building and is one of the major city buildings of that period. It is part of the streetscape of Swans ton Street, which includes a number of important Edwardian buildings such as the City Baths. I understand the City Baths and the Queen Victoria hospital had the same builder and possibly the same architect. We are now told that both the Queen Victoria site and the Willsmere site are to be sold. The Queen Victoria hospital is to be largely demolished, destroying much of the streetscape of that area in Swanston Street. It is said that Willsmere Hospital will be protected as an historic building but, if one reads the small print, one is told that a significant portion of Wills mere will be saved from demolition. It is not clear whether a significant portion means the towers or the administration building, and whether it Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1803 includes all or any of the courtyard areas extending from the administration building, and how much of any of those parts of Wills mere will be saved. Both of these buildings are a heritage of the people of Victoria from our forebears. They are as important to this city as are our great parks. In the case of the Queen Victoria hospital, as well as being a building of great architectural significance, it also has a great tradition as a women's hospital. The Queen Victoria hospital became a women's hospital in 1949 following its removal from the site which is now occupied by the Peter MacCallum hospital. The Peter MacCallum hospital site had been developed as a women's hospital by the women ofVictoria. The site had been purchased by public subscription by the women of Victoria and as a result ofthe efforts ofwomen doctors in Victoria. The women's hospital was exchanged by the people in charge of the hospital at that time for what had been the former Melbourne Hospital site, which is the Lonsdale Street site with which we are now concerned. The exchange provided that the Lonsdale Street site would be permanently reserved for the purposes of the institution known as the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital. Like many women in Victoria, I have a family connection with the Queen Victoria hospital and I feel an obligation to that hospital. Three of my children were born in the Jessie McPherson wing of the hospital. Many families feel this connection with the hospital site. I note from the correspondence I have received that this concern extends across the political spectrum. I have also become aware that many women consider their submissions on this Bill have been totally ignored by the government. They feel that the new development on the site should incorporate some aspect which would continue the tradition of service to women and families in Victoria and that their submissions in this respect have been ignored by the government. This brings me back to a subject I have raised on a number of occasions in this House and that is the consultation procedures of this government. The government continues to issue a lot of literature telling us that it has a commitment to consultation in every area in which it operates. In the government's social justice policy there is a commitment to consultation with people and in the government's economic policies there is also a commitment to consultation. More commitments to consultation are found in park and environment policies. However, when it comes down to what actually takes place, consultation either does not take place or it takes place in form only, and there is no substance to it. In a letter addressed to the Premier, which refers to consultation, the Queen Victoria Hospital Action Campaign states: Your "undertaking" to consult given on 24 April now appears to have been misleading. We now note that legislation to revoke the permanent reservation on the Lonsdale Street site "for the purposes of the Queen Victoria hospital" will be passed by the Legislative Assembly this week. Was the promise of consultation a stalling tactic to give the government time to revoke the permanent reservation without our protest? I return to consultation in respect of the Willsmere site. The subdivision and sale of the Wills mere Hospital site is a great opportunity lost to the people of Victoria. Those who have visited the old Willsmere psychiatric hospital will be aware that it is an extremely large building. I understand it has a floor area equal to approximately half the floor area of the Rialto building. It is a magnificent colonial barracks-style building similar to the barracks-style buildings in Sydney and Parramatta. It would be an excellent tourist area for Victoria. It has the potential to be a symbol of Melbourne similarly the Opera House has become the symbol of Sydney. 1804 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill

The government has no vision for the future of Willsmere. Its only reaction is to remove the psychiatric patients from Willsmere and to sell off the land for high prices. The Opposition does not object to moving patients from Willsmere, as it was obviously unsuitable as a psychiatric hospital. Various people have suggested two possibilities for the use of Willsmere. It could be a centre for Victoria the Garden State. The Burnley Horticultural College could be moved to that site and the site set up in a similar vein to the Kew Gardens, with native plants and perhaps with a fauna park. I do not know whether that is a possibility but it should be considered. It was also suggested that Willsmere would be a magnificent site for a world-class museum of Australia and the Pacific, but there has been no consideration of a development of this sort at Willsmere. Instead, a museum is being built by the Yarra River, which will be a good museum but I doubt whether it will be world-class. Willsmere is a major historic building of Australia. It is surrounded currently by beautiful parkland, which is due to be subdivided. It has spectacular views of the city and it is less than 6 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne. The notes ofa meeting of the Yarra Parks and Willsmere Coalition and the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) with the Minister for Major Projects on 12 April 1989 state: Willsmere's potential for development into a quality tourist attraction, capable of making a major contribution as a revenue-earning asset in Melbourne's fight to retain its now dwindling share of interstate and overseas tourists. The recent trend towards attracting Japan's "grey market", the older tourists, makes Willsmere-with its elevated inner city site, panoramic views, majestic building, heritage plantings, oval and its proximity to the natural setting of the Yarra Bend Park-an ideal venue for development in Australia's fast growing tourist industry. Until a few weeks ago, or less, no serious discussion of this prospect had occurred to the YP & WCs knowledge, and it is too valuable an asset to be squandered for quick profit without a full enquiry ... The key words: ... if sold privately it will be lost forever. That is true, it will be lost for ever because of the government's search for a quick dollar. All the Cain government can think about is money, and perhaps it is no wonder because of the losses of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, the Victorian Investment Corporation, WorkCare and now State Bank Victoria and Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. The Bill is part of the process for the subdivision and sale of Willsmere land. It relates to the boundaries between Willsmere and Yarra Bend Park which is one of the greatest assets of Melbourne, with its natural bushland that is so close to the centre of the city. The Bill is an indication that the government wants to squeeze the maximum number of dollars from the sale of land. Again there has been the fake consultation process. There has been a lot of talk about consultation on Willsmere-we have had a few public meetings in Kew. Representatives of the local community and the Kew City Council have been on the advisory council for the development of Willsmere but no serious consultation has taken place. No consultation has been undertaken with people outside the immediate district. A couple of weeks ago I presented a petition to Parliament containing approximately 11 000 signatures. Many of those people who were concerned about the future of Willsmere came from outside the immediate area; 11 per cent of the people who signed the petition came from Kew, 10 per cent came from the surrounding suburbs of Northcote, Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn; and the remaining 79 per cent came from elsewhere in the metropolitan area and country Victoria. Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1805

Many people in Victoria are concerned about the future of Wills mere but they have not been involved at all in any consultation on this matter. The consultation with people from Kew is such that the advisory council has not met since before Christmas and the submissions made by local people have not been accepted by the government. Various attractive newsletters have been sent out but that is as far as it has gone. We then have the saga of an independent panel, established under the Planning and Environment Act, which considered a proposed planning scheme for subdivision of the site and also for the boundaries established by the Bill; 49 people made submissions to that independent panel. The panel did not accept the government's original position that only 200 square metres be added to the Yarra Bend Park, nor did it accept the submission put forward by many objectors, including the Willsmere coalition and the Kew City Council, but it compromised on recommending that 8850 square metres be added to the park. The government was not satisfied with that recommendation by the independent panel and the Bill adds only 6000 square metres-nearly 300 square metres less than that proposed by the independent panel. The reason for this reduction is the sheer greed of the government which is determined to sell off as much land as it can from the site. The government intended to sell off one of the most spectacular views in the city of Melbourne, made up of two or three blocks that would have been sold to multimillionaires at a price of more than $1 million for each block. The government could have given the project developers everything they wanted on the boundary between the Willsmere site and the Yarra Bend Park and it would still have made sufficient money to cover the relocation of the Willsmere patients. The government said that the relocation was costing $35 million-I have my doubts about that. I believe the government upped that figure because it later said it would cost $40 million. The government has already recouped $6-5 million from the sale of the small blocks on Wills Street. The government could recoup even the inflated costs it claims without selling the magnificent nurses home site and the north-west shoulder of land, both of which the panel said should be incorporated in the park. The Opposition has made it clear that the panel's recommendations would be the minimum it would be prepared to accept. The government, in a press release over the weekend, said that it is prepared to accept at least some of the recommendations, but it attributed its change of mind to the fact that it had received submissions from the Kew council. The government made it clear that it was not responding to the opposition of the Liberal Party to the Bill. That is somewhat surprising given that the Kew council has been making the same submissions for more than twelve months-certainly very clearly over the past six months. If the government was going to give in to the Kew council, one would have expected it would have done so before the Bill was introduced. The only explanation is that the Opposition can take credit for the fact that the nurses home site is to be saved-ifthe government's press release can be relied upon. It is still not clear whether the land on the north-west shoulder will also be included in the provisions of the Bill as recommended by the panel. That should be made clear by the Minister. In conclusion I ask the government to have second thoughts about the Willsmere plan. The fate of the oval is still to be decided. This is a sporting oval for the use of the staff and patients of Wills mere. In fact, it was built by the patients of Wills mere. It has historic listing. It is needed by the people in the area, including those at the Royal Talbot Hospital, for rehabilitation patients and it can be retained only if the Kew council is prepared to buy it from the government. We are being told by the government that this land, which already belongs to the people of Victoria, can be retained by the people of Victoria only if they are prepared to pay for it again. 1806 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

The historic Willsmere building is one of the great heritages of the people of Victoria and indeed Australia. No other building of this scale in Australia is as intact. It has magnificent landmark qualities. The government should rethink the future of Willsmere. It could be a legacy from the Cain government which would be remembered with gratitude for ever. It has the potential of being a symbol for this city as a building built last century with great confidence for the future of Victoria. One hundred years later Victorians should be able to pick up that confidence in a different context and project it on for at least another 100 years. We should not be outdone by our grandparents, our great-grandparents and our great-great-grandparents. The government should show a similar confidence in the future of this city and this State to that shown by the people who built this building in the last century. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-I shall speak briefly on the Bill because the honourable member for Gippsland East has well and truly covered the National Party's position. Approximately ten different parcels of land are involved in the provisions of the Bill. It was interesting to listen to the concerns of the honourable members for Kew, Portland and Glen Waverley about the sale of some of these parcels of land such as the Queen Victoria hospital site, Yarra Bend Park and Willsmere and an area that has been set aside for the handicapped children at Malvern. I am alarmed that the government is selling off real estate assets that have been owned by this State for many years. I suppose it is because of financial mismanagement that the government finds it necessary to sell off these parcels of land at high prices. One cannot criticise the government if there are buyers out there willing to pay high prices for this land but one can criticise the government for not understanding that this land can be sold off only once. Once a transaction has been made, the land leaves the control of the government for all time. Public land should be retained, especially ifit can be utilised by another public authority, for the benefit of all Victorians. Clause 18 relates to land at Kaniva. This is a small piece of land alongside the fire brigade station and backing onto the railway reserve. The Kaniva Shire Council made application for the land to be taken over by the fire brigade in 1984. It has taken five years for the application to be processed. The land will now pass from the immediate control of the government into the hands of a community authority for community use. It comprises 1733 square metres, which is almost 2 hectares. The people of Kaniva will make good use of this area of land. In fact, progress has already been made towards using the land for the purpose for which it was intended many years ago. By acquiring the land, the people of Kaniva have more incentive to be involved in its use. The other small piece of land referred to in the Bill is the land on which the Pomonal Public Hall is situated. The purpose of the reservation of this land, which comprises 9030 square metres, was as a site for a public hall and for public recreation. Pomonal is situated in the middle of the Grampians. I am not sure whether "Pomonal" is an Aboriginal name. Ifit is not, the Minister for Tourism will probably want to change it at some time in the future. The people of Pomonal have a specific interest in that land and will be happy with the provision in the Bill because it will give them full control of the land. Comments have been made about the prime real estate in the metropolitan area that will be realised by the government. I understand the concerns of honourable Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1807 members about that land. However, I can speak only about those areas of land in the country areas with which I am familiar, namely, Pomonal and Kaniva. Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-As I understand it, the Malvern land was, in fact, part of an arrangement with the Y ooralla Society of Victoria. I shall be interested to know what will happen in respect of the funds, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that this is not another one of the government's arrangements whereby it is attempting to sell off land to put back funds into government revenue and, in fact, the people who have participated in the use of that land over past years will wind up with nothin~. Perhaps the Minister will take note of my comments and say tonight whether she IS prepared to made a donation to the Yooralla Society. Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe)-I should like to comment, firstly, on the Willsmere Hospital site. I understand the direction and the policy the $overnment has adopted, and I also understand the need for funds to implement ItS policy on the mental institution and the direction it wants to go. I have no argument with the direction the government is taking, but there is a need to place on record my concern over the selling off of the Willsmere site, not so much for today's generation, but for future generations. There is no doubt that in years to come we will certainly be sorry for selling off this area. It is unique. At the same time that I express that concern, I point out that I understand the financial reasons for selling the site. However, we ought to know why Victoria is in such a bad financial position today that the government cannot afford to do anything else unless it sells off an asset. That is the question that all honourable members ought to ask. Through the Bill, there is a proposal to sell off a most magnificent asset. Future generations will probably wonder for ever why the people of today took the action that they did. Public open space such as this will become extremely valuable. It is not considered so valuable today, because it is maintained that we still have areas such as the Yarra Bend Park. However, one can imagine how important an area such as this will be to future generations in 50 or 100 years time. I have expressed concern consistently about the creation of open space through the declaration of national parks. It is all very well to go out into country areas and declare national parks, but the fact is that the people in this State are living in the cities, and our future policies must ensure that the natural expansion of population occurs in the cities because of the cost of services. In 30, 40 or 50 years time, I expect there will be a doubling of the population in inner suburban areas of Melbourne, particularly with the growth of regional shopping centres, which will result in population growth in a similar way to that occurring overseas. In turn, the greatest demand will be for open space. Yet, in this Chamber tonight, honourable members are debating a Bill that will enable the selling off of such areas. As I said at the outset, I understand why the government has to do this, but it ought to be an embarrassment to all of us that we are in a position today where we cannot say· to future generations, "Yes, we had to do that by transferring the people in those places out into normal suburban living, but at the same time, we had enough money to keep this for future generations". This does reflect the State's serious financial position. I should like to refer, secondly, to some land in Heidelbe1'$, which is part of the Bell Street-Banksia Street link. I do not know whether the MinIster realises that this has been a long, protracted and controversial traffic issue in Heidelberg, on which action has been required for some time. Certain parts of parkland that were not part of the 1808 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill road reservation have had to be used. That is now taking place. I compliment the government on its stand and its commitment to replace some of that parkland with an area that is listed in the Bill. The Heidelberg City Council is unique in its management of parkland. Without doubt, the most controversial decision that the council has made in the past 30, 40 or 50 years was to construct that road link. It is something that the progress of time forced upon us. However, to highlight the Willsmere example again, I point out that, if a certain area of parkland is used for other purposes, the same amount ought to be replaced. I compliment the government on taking action and supporting the Heidelberg City Council in this regard. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I thank honourable members opposite for their contributions to the second-reading debate. Ten members of the opposition parties gave us the benefit of their views on the Bill, and some major issues were raised, which I shall attempt to answer. The honourable member for Berwick encapsulated the debate by saying that there were three matters with which the Opposition takes issue and about which it requires some explanation and further consultation with the government and other groups. The first matter is the Yarra Bend Park land and the Willsmere site boundary. There is a foreshadowed amendment, which will bring in some of the areas. Mr Maclellan-Are you foreshadowing it? Mrs SETCHES-Yes, I am foreshadowing it. In fact, it is quite interesting that news of it got into the Age before I foreshadowed it here. I believe the explanation required relates to the excellent proposals and the very strong representations that were put before the Minister for Major Projects when he met with the Kew City Council. Although possibly two or three honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Kew, outlined the process that was undertaken to examine methods of disposing of the Willsmere property and what might be the appropriate boundary and the consultations that occurred. I believe it should be stated distinctly for the record that there has been very long and strong consultation between the Minister for Major Projects, the honourable member for Kew and an honourable member for East Yarra Province in another place. Other members of the opposition parties were also involved, but it was mainly those two honourable members who were involved in the discussions about the Willsmere site. Honourable members opposite have said that it would be a good thing to keep the Willsmere site for posterity. I suppose, in the best of all possible worlds, that may be a good thing to do. However, one must examine what is required to replace or provide very extensive community-based psychiatric facilities for the people who were housed in the Willsmere Hospital. As one of the members of the government's health caucus committee who assisted in developing the alternative community-based programs that Willsmere is to fund, I must say that hard decisions must be made from time to time. The transfer of money from one to the other is one of the things that I consider to be worthwhile. After reading the joint Parliamentary committee's report and understanding that the quality of life of people within that institution was really quite inadequate and, in fact, frightful, I considered that there was a need to provide all those sorts of facilities and the capital for them, and the sale of the Willsmere site is the way in which we will be able to do that. I return now to the boundary. As I said, the Minister for Major Projects found compelling some of the arguments put forward by the Kew City Council and Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1809 deputations with which he met. It is recognised that the Kew City Council will be the authority responsible for administering the new Willsmere planning controls. Therefore, the committee of management for the area will be the Kew City Council. I must say that the Kew City Council has worked very cooperatively and responsibly with the Victorian Government Major Projects Unit on the main proposal for the future of the Willsmere site, and the government really values that working relationship. The government's proposed amendment, therefore, realigns the park boundary in the nurses home area to transfer additional land to the park and recognises that this will have a further impact on revenue. As a result, the entire nurses home site is now proposed to be included in the Yarra Bend Park, and the Minister for Major Projects will continue to have discussions with representatives of the City of Kew about the prospect, in addition, of requiring an unusually high level of open space within the area of the former Willsmere Hospital proposed for residential development. That probably answers a number of issues raised by honourable members opposite. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mrs SETCHES-No, I said that the Minister will continue to have discussions about the property especially, in addition, about requiring additional high levels of open space in the area of the Willsmere property proposed for residential development. If further discussion is required, I am sure the Minister will clarify that issue while the Bill is between here and another place. In regard to the revocation of the permanent reservation of the land being the site of the former Queen Victoria hospital, a decision was taken in the early 1980s to relocate the Queen Victoria hospital to facilities being built at Clayton, and the former facilities closed in mid-1987. It was decided that the money raised from the sale of the Queen Victoria hospital land would go to the development of the Southbank proposal, so it would be a transfer of public money from one site to another. It is clear that the site will be sold by public tender or auction and it is critical that the government keeps to the timetable already indicated. I am sure that the Opposition would not wish to hold up the development of the Southbank project. The Opposition raised some significant consultation matters regarding what have been termed "the women of Victoria" and the view long held by a range of women in the community that there is an emotional and moral claim to the land and perhaps even the building thereon. Discussions were held between the Premier and the Women's Policy Coordination Unit and the results of those discussions were read out to the House. Women's groups met with the Premier on 24 April and with other officers on 15 May. There has been an ongoing commitment by the government, clearly stated in the women's health policy working party report of 1987, of which I was one of the authors, to a women's health information centre on the old Queen Victoria hospital site and the government will keep that commitment. If the women's movement requires the information centre to be situated on that site, it will be sited there. I understand how some women feel about this issue because I consulted with a number of women's groups throughout Victoria and I believe the government's stand will be adhered to. The provisions relating to the Parkville lands will be removed from the Bill. There is a need for further consultation with the University of Melbourne regarding the appropriate tenure for the future occupation of the site and I give an undertaking that the matter will be discussed while the Bill is between here and another place. The honourable member for Malvern raised a matter that was really a side issue and I am not sure that he wishes me to comment on it. I have been informed that the 181 0 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

Minister will not make any contribution to the Spastic Society of Victoria. The freehold title of the land was never granted to the Spastic Society. The society was given the right to appoint a committee of management in 1978 but it has no claIm on any proceeds of sale. Consultation will occur while the Bill is between here and another place on matters that have been raised by honourable members. The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time, and it was ordered that it be committed later this day. The SPEAKER announced the presentation of a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill. The House went into Committee for the consideration of this Bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-I should appreciate an indication from the Minister as to why it is proposed under clause 2 (1) that section 29 of the Bill is deemed to have come into operation on 24 November 1987, which appears to be a rather strange requirement and one which is not, it seems, adequately explained yet; and why should we be backdating legislation by almost two years, with what consequence and for what purpose? Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 1. Clause 2, line 2, omit "29" and insert "24". 2. Clause 2, line 4, omit "10 (sections 20 and 21) come" and insert "8 comes". 3. Clause 2, line 6, omit "23 to 26" and insert "18 to 21". These amendments to clause 2 effect changes to the sections numbered and have been made necessary because of the removal of provisions relating to the various lands. They also remove a printing error, changing "come" to "comes". I shall have to seek advice regarding the request of the honourable member for Berwick. It appears to me that there might be an error. The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 4 to 6. Heading to Part 4, and clauses 7 and 8 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I invite the Committee to vote against the heading to Part 4, and clauses 7 and 8. This will remove the provisions relating to the Parkville lands. The clauses are to be removed because there is a need to conduct further consultation with the University of Melbourne on the appropriate tenure for its future occupation of the site. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-The Opposition-and I hope the National Party­ would not be inspired to decline the invitation of the Minister to omit clauses 7 and 8, which remove the university lands from the provisions ofthe Bill. I should appreciate it if the Minister could strengthen the position slightly by giving an undertaking that, pending settlement with the university of the question which is no longer part of the Bill, the status quo in respect of the present lands occupied will be maintained. If there Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1811 were that assurance that whatever is in existence now will continue until such arrangements are made, further discussions with the Minister will allow the university to negate the situation and perhaps subsequently another Bill will arrive in the House. The heading to Part 4, and clauses 7 and 8 were negatived. Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed to. Clause 11 Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-In respect of the Minister's comments regarding what I have described broadly as the women's movement and the Queen Victoria hospital site, it is not satisfactory that the women of Victoria be treated like the Lady of Shalott and locked in the three historic towers of the Queen Victoria hospital, perhaps to grow their hair long and then have somebody dash down the side of the building. That is not what the Opposition had in mind. It is not prepared to put up with what the government has proposed. It may be of interest to the government and to some of the women to whom the government has spoken. However, the Opposition is interested in the broader issue. The establishment of a women's health service in a few historic towers which are to be retained only to satisfy the whim of the Historic Buildings Council and the Minister for Planning and Environment in respect of Edwardian buildings-which have no historic importance as gems for the State to retain, but are a blight on the landscape-might make some women happy. However, if the towers were pulled down, there would be a more positive step taken rather than a backward looking hop, saying, "Into the towers, girls; that is good enough for you!" The government is saying, "We have to keep these wretched towers. How about giving them to the women's movement?" That is not good enough. The government will not get its stic~ hands on the money to be made from the sale of the Queen Victoria hospital site until It makes a satisfactory arrangement with the women of Victoria. The government had better get the message that it is not going to be enough to refer to the health reports of yesteryear. I am sure the documents were admirable, but the approach is unsatisfactory, and the Opposition will not cop that. The Country Women's Association of Victona will not cop it; the Jewish women's association will not cop it; even the radical health women will not cop it! The government has a message coming through loud and clear: it has 60 million good reasons to reach an accommodation with the women's movement-or is it 90 million good reasons! I say this not in teasing the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, but I address my remarks to the Premier, the Treasurer, and the Ministers who have so badly let her down: they have Thursday and Friday-and I imagine Saturday morning-to get it sorted out. That is what the Opposition is talking about: get serious; start talking; do not just dust off some old report and say, "You can have the towers because we have to keep them anyway". We are saying: start talking to the broader women's groups, which have approached the government, have asked for discussions to be held, and have been treated in a way that defies imagination. That is what the Opposition is saying and I am sure the same is true for the National Party. In respect of clauses 11 and 12, the answer given by the government so far is totally unsatisfactory. Its chances of ~etting its hot little hands on the money from the sale of the Queen VIctoria hospital SIte is diminished by the Minister trying to say what she is instructed to do is the right thing. In the circumstances, that is desperately inadequate. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I support the original clause. I have listened to great support for women's organisations and health 1812 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill services from members on the other side of the Committee. This has been given after I have heard nothing but derision of the support and allocations by the government for women's health and other services over a number of State Budgets. If it were not for this government, there would be no women's health program-which is worth millions of dollars now-and there would not be the number of services that are now provided for victims of sexual assault. In respect of the health services provided for women, the Opposition has indicated that some women's groups have more status than others by mentioning some over others. Had it been the others that the honourable member has omitted to speak about, they would not have the same power in putting the Opposition's argument across the table. The government has a commitment to continue discussions with respect to women's health and to finalise the matter, because it wishes the revocation of this reserve to proceed and wishes to provide-- Mr Maclellan interjected. Mrs SETCHES-The honourable member says he wishes that to happen as well. The government does not wish to hold up the very good development that is occurring at the museum and the library. It wishes to ensure that the best possible use of public money occurs. I support the clause. The clause was agreed to, as was clause 12. Clause 13 Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-As I said briefly-in, I suspect, one of my briefer replies to a second-reading speech-this land was allocated to the Yooralla Society of Victoria some years ago. I think Mr Guest in the other place was involved through a family connection; apparently a great-aunt of his had a claim to ownership of the land that the government is now getting for nothing. The Minister should tell the community­ and certainly, the Yooralla Society of Victoria-what money Yooralla or the community will receive because of this provision. The parcel of land is worth millions of dollars. The honourable member for Prahran and I would be thrilled with some of the property development that will happen on that site if it were to happen in our electorates. Mrs Setches-Y ou would be thrilled. Mr LEIGH-The Liberal vote would go up in the area. Mrs Hirsch-With you as the member! Mr LEIGH-It is like that other piece of land in Toorak, where the government spends $150 000 for each housing development for the poor. How many houses could it build outside Toorak for that amount? That is what the government did, as the Minister would know if she bothered to leave her Ministerial chair and find out. Mrs Setches-Keep on the clause. Mr LEIGH-I am dealing with the clause. The government is getting land for nothing from what was deemed to be land for Y ooralla. Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna)-On a point of order, Mr Chairman, the honourable member for Malvern is not speaking to the clause. I ask you to request that he speak to the clause under discussion. Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-On the point of order, clearly I returned to the issue of this land and the Yooralla Society of Victoria. I think the honourable member for Wantima Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1813 is being frivolous and taking it out on me because of something that has happened between the honourable member for Wantirna and me. The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! I have been listening carefully to the debate-I find it quite fascinating. I believe the honourable member for Malvern was speaking to the clause. Mr LEIGH-I thank you for your protection, Mr Chairman, being the frightening member of Parliament that I am. In this case, the government is receiving something for nothing, as is happening with other pieces of land that the government claims. Considering the amount of money the government has been deducting from grants to Y ooralla in other areas over the past few years, that society has a right to know whether it is to receive something because of the provision in the Bill. If the Minister is serious and genuine about the Yooralla community, she could look after it and perhaps say, "Maybe there will have to be a donation from this". If the Minister has any guts, that is what she should be prepared to do, if the government is not going to rip the people off once again. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-The Spastic Society of Victoria has taken no steps to redevelop the site since the buildin$s were demolished in 1978. The Ministry of Education believes the existing facilitles can adequately cope with all requirements. Public land is being discussed at the moment because the freehold title was never granted to the society. The land was permanently reserved in 1978 for the training of handicapped people, and a permanent reservation prevents land being used for any purpose other than that for which it was reserved. The society did not use the site for the original purposes, and the land remains vacant. The clause was agreed to, as was clause 14. Heading to Part 8, and clauses 15, 16 and 17 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I invite the Committee to vote against the heading to Part 8, and clauses 15, 16 and 17. The heading to Part 8, and clauses 15, 16 and 17 were negatived. Clause 18 Honourable members interjecting. The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! The honourable member for Malvern is out of his place and out of order. I consider I have been extremely patient with him. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I thank the Committee for its polite wait for me! I move: 11. Clause 18, line 12, omit "item 2" and insert "item 1". The amendment was agreed to. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 12. Clause 18, line 14, omit "Part 3" and insert "Part 2". The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 19 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 13. Clause 19, line 17, omit "Part 3" and insert "Part 2". 1814 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous M auers) Bill

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 20 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 14. Clause 20, line 22, omit "item 3" and insert "item 2". 15. Clause 20, line 24, omit "Part 4" and insert "Part 3". The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 21 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 16. Clause 21, omit "Part 4" and insert "Part 3". The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Heading to Part 11 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 17. Heading to Part 11, page 4, line 30, omit this heading and insert- "PART 9-YARRA BEND PARK LANDS". Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-I seek some clarification from the Minister. If the amendment were agreed to, there would be two parts numbered "9" in the one Bill. A Part 9 concerning Kaniva land has been agreed to; this Part 9 relates to Yarra Bend Park lands. It seems confusing. 1 should have thought that the Committee should be considering "Part ll-Yarra Bend Park lands". The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! That will have been amended because the title has been changed. All the other numbers will be automatically amended. 1 assure the honourable member that that is the correct procedure. The amendment was agreed to, and the heading, as amended, was adopted. Clause 22 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands )-1 move: 18. Clause 22, page 5, line 16, omit "or" and insert "of'. Mrs WADE (Kew)-I ask the Minister for some clarification about the proposed amendment and the proposed changes to Schedule 4, all of which are covered by this clause. As I understand it, there are two areas within the Willsmere Hospital site where the proposals in the Bill differ from the proposals made by an independent panel established under the Planning and Environment Act. One area is the nurses home site which is now to be included in the Yarra Bend Park; the other area is in the north-west shoulder of the site where, as I understand it, there is some variation between the recommendations of that independent panel and the proposals contained in the Bill. It is difficult to understand, from an examination of the two schedules-the schedule initially included in the Bill and the schedule proposed to be inserted in the Bill­ whether there has been a change to the north-west shoulder of the site. 1 ask the Minister to clarify that. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-I support the honourable member for Kew's request of the Minister. Any honourable member who has the list of amendments in his or her hands will understand the problem. It is proposed to amend Schedule 4 by the substitution of a new Part 2, which is shown on the third page of the proposed amendments. The Opposition is not sure whether it is a case of bigger and better or Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1815 smaller and more miserable, because measurements have not been provided. In fact, measurements have not been provided for either map. I do not know whether the schedule contained in the proposed amendment represents exactly what the independent panel recommended, or whether it has been snatched from a $1 million home site. I presume that is not the case; but I shall not rely on that, because the Opposition has not received an adequate explanation thus far. With respect, Mr Chairman, rather than slogging on with the minute detail of proposed amendments, such as the proposed amendment to clause 22-page 5, line 16, omit "or" and insert "of'-that the Committee is dealing with, and then dealing with other amendments, the Minister should explain what the proposed amendments to clause 22 and the following clauses will do. What they appear to do is to add more land to Yarra Bend Park. I say "what they appear to do", because the map contained in the list of proposed amendments seems to be slightly more generous than the map in Schedule 4 of the Bill. It seems more generous in the area of what is called the nurses home which, if one turns to page 3 of the proposed amendments, is near the figure "60" at the bottom of the map. That appears to be similar in area to the upper part, or the more northerly part, which is situated near the word "road" at the top of the diagram. It may be exactly the same or it may be different. Even if the degrees and minutes of the angles are not provided, the Committee is entitled to be given a general description of whether the proposed amendments reflect the recommendations of the planning appeals panel, whether they are concoctions of the Major Projects Unit or whether they have been recommended by the City ofKew. The Committee is entitled to be told whose ideas are reflected in the drawing of the boundaries. In other words, the Committee is entitled to be told the drawer of the map and whether it represents the best offer the government is prepared to make in the circumstances. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-The proposed amendments will realign the park boundary near the nurses home area and will transfer additional land to the park. The government recognises that will have a further impact on the revenue that will be raised from the sale of land, because the entire nurses home site is to be included in the Yarra Bend Park. The amendments were drafted after discussions with the Kew City Council. As I understand it, the proposed amendments are not entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the review panel. That information could be gained by discussing the matter with the council; certainly it is no secret. There has been a great deal of discussion about the matter. In answer to the honourable member's request, it is clear that there will be no change to the upper area but that change will certainly occur in the lower area. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 23 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 19. Clause 23, page 6, lines 14-15, omit proposed paragraph (f). 20. Clause 23, page 6, line 16, omit "(g)" and insert "(f)". 21. Clause 23, page 6, line 18, omit "(h)" and insert "(g)". 22. Clause 23, page 6, line 20, omit "(i)" and insert "(h)". 23. Clause 23, page 6, line 20, omit "22" and insert "17". 1816 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill

24. Clause 23, page 6, after line 22 insert- "(z) the land shown cross-hatched on the plan in the Schedule to the Kew Lands (Grant Amendment) Act 1968; and". 25. Clause 23, page 6, line 38, omit "22" and insert" 17". The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 24 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 26. Oause 24, line 9, omit "22" and insert "17". 27. Oause 24, line 11, omit "22" and insert "17". The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 25 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 28. Clause 25, line 21, omit "22" and insert "17". 29. Clause 25, line 28, omit "land" (where secondly occurring) and insert "plan". The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 26 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 30. Oause 26, line 34, omit "22" and insert" 17". 31. Oause 26, line 39, omit "22" and insert "17". The amendments were agreed ~o, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Clause 27 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 32. Clause 27, line 5, omit "this Act" and insert "Part 8". 33. Clause 27, line 6, omit "4" and insert "3". The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 28 and 29. Clause 30 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 34. Clause 30, line 18, omit sub-clause (3). The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted. Schedule 1 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 35. Schedule 1, item 5, omit this item. The amendment was agreed to, and the schedule, as amended, was adopted. Schedule 2 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 36. Schedule 2, item 2, omit "1959" and insert "1950". The amendment was agreed to, and the schedule, as amended, was adopted. Land (Miscellaneous M aUers) Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1817

Schedule 3 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 37. Schedule 3, Part 1, omit item 1. 38. Schedule 3, Part 1, item 2, omit "Part 3" and insert "Part 2". 39. Schedule 3, Part 1, item 3, omit "Part 4" and insert "Part 3". 40. Schedule 3, Part 2, omit this Part. 41. Schedule 3, heading to Part 3, omit "3" and insert "2". 42. Schedule 3, Part 3, omit "Item 2" and insert "Item I". 43. Schedule 3, heading to Part 4, omit "4" and insert "3". 44. Schedule 3, Part 4, omit "Item 3" and insert "Item 2". The amendments were agreed to, and the schedule, as amended, was adopted. Schedule 4 Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 45. Schedule 4, Part 2, omit this Part and insert- "PART 2

PUBLiC Area crass-hatched ta . PARK be excised from Reserve. ANO ~~~~ Area· \·45 ha;±: RECREATION RESERVE (PERMANENT)

Hatched portions ta be odded ta Reserve. Total Areo: 2·25 ha. o ~ 100 150 WCTJII[S

The amendment was agreed to, and the schedule, as amended, was adopted. 1818 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Frankston Lands Bill

Title Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: 46. Long Title, omit ", the Wangaratta Lands Act 1933 and the Melbourne (Veterinary School) Lands Act 1970" and insert "and the Wangaratta Lands Act 1933". The amendment was agreed to, and the title, as amended, was adopted. The Bill was reported to the House with amendments, including an amended title, and the amendments were adopted. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn)-Land Bills come to this Parliament on a regular basis. They are normally uncontentious Bills dealing with various packages of land that are managed or owned by the Crown. Generally, they deal with matters that are agreed to by the opposition parties but, on this occasion, there have been 46 government amendments to a Bill, which is an indication of sloppy drafting. The Minister should take heed that the need for 46 amendments to a relatively simple Bill is a direct reflection on the capacity of her department and on the Minister in presenting a simple Bill to this Parliament. The Minister's department is letting her down and she should ask why. It is a poor performance by the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands In bringing a simple Bill into this place. It is a deplorable reflection on the department and on the Minister. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time.

FRANKSTON LANDS BILL The debate (adjourned from May 4) on the motion of Mrs Setches (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mr WEIDEMAN (Frankston South)-The provisions of the Frankston Lands Bill were taken out of the Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill because the Frankston Lands Bill was a private Bill based on the assumption that it would give the Frankston Football Club the capacity to use the land concerned for profit. I understand that in August 1986 the City ofFrankston, on behalf of the Frankston Football Oub, requested that the club have a 21-year lease to enable it to improve its social club facilities and grandstand. Most honourable members would appreciate that Frankston is a Victorian Football Association club and has been prominent in the association in recent years. The football ground is a small one, as evidenced by the high scores at the ground. Amenities at the ground have been improved, and in 1986 a 21-year lease was required, pursuant to section 17D of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act. The lease was prepared and it was found necessary to bring this Bill before the Parliament. In her second-reading speech, the Minister said: The existing facilities are substandard and the football club has applied to the City of Frankston, as the committee of management of the area, for a permit to undertake substantial redevelopment of the area. The council has spent more than $150 000 in extending the playing surface and other facilities at the ground. A considerable portion of the $450 000 claimed for general landscaping has already been expended. In 1986 the football club intended to use the clubhouse for other activities, such as bingo and discos, to raise funds but has now decided in favour of a lesser proposal. Frankston Lands Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1819

The City of Frankston is concerned about the preamble of the Bill, which states: Certain lands at Frankston are used by the Frankston Football Club and permanently reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 as a site for a public park ... The Frankston City Council believes the words "sporting and recreational activities" should be incorporated in that preamble as the ground is not wholly and solely used by the Victorian Football Association. The SPEAKER-Order! The time appointed by Sessional Orders for me to interrupt business has now arrived. On the motion ofMr ROPER (Minister for Planning and Environment), the sitting was continued. Mr WEIDEMAN (Frankston South)-The activities conducted at the ground are not only football activities. I point out to the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands and the government that the council sees its role more as being the manager of the area. The lease will apply not only to the football club and its activities. The honourable member for Frankston North and I are well aware that other activities take place at the ground. Mr Plowman-A small boy named James Plowman used the ground! Mr WEIDEMAN-I am reminded that a small boy called James Plowman and his family used that ground. The Plowman family live close to the ground in Plowman Place, which is listed in the schedule of the Bill. I inform the House that Plowman Place is named after Dr Plowman and his family. The honourable member for Evelyn is a member of that family, and Frankston was his home for a number of years. Initially the football club thought that, when the bingo operation conducted at the RSL club was closed down, the site would be used as offices for the Commonwealth Public Service and that the bingo operation would move into reserve facilities provided by the football club. However, the operator has purchased another building in Frankston, so that will not occur. Nevertheless, this facility is available to the community and it will be used to generate funds for the operation of the Frankston Football Club. The council lease will make it clear that the grounds will be used not only for football activities but also for other sporting and recreational activities. I understand that consideration has been given to the ground being used for cricket, either this summer or the following summer at the subdistrict level, which would make the ground a dual-use facility, as are many VFA grounds. I first saw the Bill when it was introduced into the House a fortnight ago. However, the Frankston City Council was aware of the provisions of the Bill before then. The council has no objection to the Bill being passed, except that it wants to ensure that it has control of the management of the site. I commend the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands)-I thank the honourable member for Frankston South for his comments and especially for his understanding of the need for the speedy passage of the Bill. I am grateful that the foreshadowed amendment proposed by the Opposition will be moved in the Upper House so that the Bill can quickly pass through Parliament. The Bill, when adopted, will adequately meet the needs of both the Frankston City Council and the Frankston Football Club. The motion was agreed to. 1820 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Valuation ofLand (Amendment) Bill

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

VALUATION OF LAND (AMENDMENT) BILL This Bill was returned from the Council with a message relating to amendments. It was ordered that the message be taken into consideration next day.

SECOND-HAND DEALERS AND PAWNBROKERS BILL The debate (adjourned from April 20) on the motion ofMr McCutcheon (Attorney­ General) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed. Mrs WADE (Kew)-In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General described the Bill as a substantial reform of the law governing the regulation of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. The Bill covers three Acts: the Second-hand Dealers Act, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Marine Stores and Old Metals Act. In the Kew electorate I have come across a wide range of second-hand dealers selling antique furniture and furniture that is not antique but second-hand, and a substantial number of second-hand clothing stores. The Attorney-General also stated that the Bill will implement the thrust of proposals of a discussion paper issued jointly by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Regulation Review Unit as part of the reference the government has given them to inquire into occupational regulation. The discussion paper proposed the continuation of the regulation of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. Page 8 of the report states: There is a case for continuing to regulate specifically second-hand dealing and pawnbroking. The case rests principally on the crime prevention ground, with the additional consideration of consumer protection in relation to pawnbroking. Draft recommendation 2 of the discussion paper states that the government should: Continue to regulate the occupations of buying and selling second-hand goods. The regulation should not apply to new marine stores or to other goods which have not previously been used. Continue to specifically regulate pawnbroking. However, the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Regulation Review Unit did not consider that the licensing system now applying to second-hand dealers, pawnbrokers and dealers in marine stores and old metals should continue. They recommend that the licensing system be abandoned. The Bill provides for a licensing system. It is not a system along the lines of the existing system where applications are made to a Magistrates Court and licences are issued by the court. In future, applications and licences will be dealt with by municipal councils. It is proposed that there will be three types of licences, which are set out in clause 5. There will be a second-hand dealer's business premises licence which will authorise the holder to act as a second-hand dealer at the premises specified in the licence. Alternatively, a dealer can apply for a second-hand dealer's market licence which will authorise the holder to act as a second-hand dealer at any market in Victoria; the application is to be made to the municipal council in whose district the first market at which the dealer intends to operate is situated. Also, an application for a pawnbroker's business premises licence may be granted, which will authorise the holder to act as a pawnbroker at the premises specified in the licence. Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1821

Prior to considering an application for a licence the municipal council must give notice to the local police. On considering the application the municipal council must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. In giving consideration to that the municipal council may hear evidence from the police. The council also has to be satisfied that the licensed premises will comply with any relevant planning scheme and that the applicant has applied for the licence in the appropriate form under the Act, and has paid the appropriate fee. Following the issue of a licence the council has the power to revoke a licence, and that application may be initiated by the council itself or by the police. A licence may be revoked if a licensee is guilty of an offence against the Act or of any offence involving dishonesty. The relevant council may revoke the licence if satisfied that the licensee has acted as a second-hand dealer or as a pawnbroker otherwise than as authorised by the licence or if the licensee has failed to comply with a condition of the licence or if it is found that the licensee or, in the case of a body corporate, a director or the nominee is otherwise no longer a fit and proper person to act as a second-hand dealer or as a pawnbroker. The basis of both the licence application and the revocation of licence provisions is to ensure that criminal elements do not enter into this industry. In this instance, the Opposition considers the government's departure from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and the Regulations Review Unit to be sensible. It is of great concern to the police and also of concern to legitimate dealers that criminal elements not be attracted to the second-hand dealing or pawnbroking businesses. Without a licensing system it would be difficult for the police to control the sale of stolen goods. As well as feedback from the police, who have no problems with the provisions of the Bill, I have had some contact from second-hand dealers both within the electorate I represent and outside it, and they certainly support a licensing system. It is a type of licensing system which does not amount to a closed shop, which, of course, the Opposition would not support. It would keep out criminal elements and fly-by-night operators which give the industry a bad name. Generally speaking, I found that second-hand dealers and members of second-hand dealers organisations, in particular, antique dealers organisations are happy with the provisions of the Bill which are directed at preventing the sale of stolen goods. I refer in particular to clause 19 which requires a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker to take reasonable steps to ascertain and verify the identity of every person from whom the dealer or pawnbroker receives second-hand goods. It is important that that be done. This is, in fact, presently done by legitimate dealers. They are required to keep records showing from whom they have bought second-hand goods. It is an obligation not only on the dealer but also on the person selling because if a person wanting to sell goods is not able to verify his identity he will not be able to sell his second-hand goods. There is also an obligation under the provisions of the Bill for dealers and pawnbrokers to keep records of the people from whom they receive goods and that is similar to the present provisions. There can be no argument with these requirements. However, there is one aspect of the Bill which concerns a number of dealers and, in particular, I have had approaches from dealers who operate in the electorate I represent who are concerned about the requirement that goods be kept for seven days before they can be sold. The present requirement is that they should be kept for four days. There may be circumstances-and I am sure there are-in which the seven-day requirement is reasonable but a number of people dealing in second-hand clothes on a consignment basis have approached me about the clause. Many of these people selling second-hand 1822 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill clothes describe them as designer clothes. People have bought them and then found that they do not suit them and so they are sold to people who could perhaps not afford designer clothes. This is obviously a useful service to the community, and it is one that could come in useful for some members of Parliament who need to keep up appearances! These clothes are not purchased immediately from the seller. Apparently they are generally acquired on a consignment basis. By that I mean that if one has clothes one is no longer wearing, one takes them to this type of shop and enters into an arrangement with the owner so that the clothes will be kept for two months. If, after that time, the shopkeeper is unable to sell them, the person gets them back and then has to find other means of disposing of them. In those circumstances the people will not be dealing in stolen clothes because obviously someone who has stolen clothes will not leave them for two months and then return to pick up the money or retrieve the clothes. I understand it is difficult when these clothes are in the shop and, upon finding that someone has taken a liking to a particular piece of clothing, the shopkeeper has to explain that they are not available for seven days, and this will be quite a problem for this type of business. Each of the people who approached me on that point-and there were a number of them-said that they did not deal in the sorts of clothes that are normally a problem in the stolen clothes area. They do not, for example, sell furs. Some of the other people who approached me on this point were dealers in second-hand furniture, and I am talking about the type of furniture that is not antique furniture. I should like to try to convince the Minister to consider an exemption for these people by reading from a letter I received from a second-hand furniture dealer in the Kew area. He said this provision is "absolutely stupid": In my particular case I sell a lot of goods on consignment. Once again nobody is going to leave stolen goods with the dealer when they would presumably want money straight away. Mrs Wade, I also stress that the majority of second-hand dealers only have small premises and in the majority of cases they are handling large pieces offumiture-wardrobes, dressing tables, tables, lounge suites etc. I myself have had as many as two and three truck loads come in in a week. If we have to keep all our stock for seven days it is going to create a nightmare of record keeping, dead stock, angry buying public and loss of sales, for example, "I would like to buy that item now and take it home with me-not in seven days time" will be a much heard retort after, "sorry, I can't sell that item to you for seven days, Madam". This does present a problem in these sorts of businesses, and I suggest to the Minister that there should be a provision for regulations exempting businesses of this kind which are really not a problem so far as stolen goods are concerned. It may be that the regulation-making powers are intended to cover this particular difficulty but it is not clear to me that they do so, and I ask the Minister to consider, between here and another place, whether an amendment to the regulation-making powers is required in order that this sort of problem can be overcome. I point out to him that these sorts of items-second-hand clothing and large items of furniture-are not major items of concern in the stolen goods area. The particular second-hand dealer who wrote to me about his wardrobes and dressing tables said that the major problem is with television sets, video tape recorders, items ofjewellery, cameras, coins, medals, stamps, furs, sterling silverware, power tools, radio cassettes, paintings and so on. That is consistent with police records, which show that the most frequently stolen items are cash, video recorders and television sets, which account for 32 per cent of the total, followed by miscellaneous jewellery, rings, watches, power tools, radio cassettes and other electrical items. Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 23 May 1989 ASSEMBLY 1823

Two other matters have been raised by second-hand dealers, and I direct them to the attention of the Attorney-General. They both relate to the provisions of clause 10. Firstly, clause 10 (5) provides that councils must take into account the fact that an application is made as required by the Act, that the applicant is a fit and proper person, and that the proposed activity complies with planning schemes. Having proved all that, the subclause provides that the council may grant a licence. That appears to be an error and perhaps the word "may" should be "must". If an applicant complies with the provisions of clause 10 (5) extraneous considerations should not be taken into account. Dangers are involved in permitting councils to take other considerations into account. It may well be that, in an area where there are a number of antique or second­ hand clothing shops, there is pressure on councils not to permit another person to open a similar business. That would be wrong; the Bill is not intended to regulate that type of action. The Bill is about ensuring that second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are fit and proper people to be involved in that area and that they comply with the law. A council should not take into account matters that are not relevant to the Bill. I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "may" in the second line of clause 10 (5) should be "must". Clause 10 (7) provides that a licence is subject to: the condition that a licensee should comply with the Act and the regulations and any planning law and scheme; any prescribed conditions; and any other conditions imposed by the relevant council. I believe that goes too far. The Bill deals with such matters as second-hand dealers keeping proper records and keeping goods for however many days they are required to. If a licensee complies with those provisions, I see no reason why other conditions should be imposed. The final matter I mention is my concern at the way the Bill has been handled. I have received a number of letters from different councils, again including councils in the electorate I represent. They have complained about not being consulted about the Bill prior to its being introduced to Parliament. Apparently the Municipal Association of Victoria had some involvement in the early stages of the preparation of the Bill but had no participation in the later stages. I am told by the Municipal Association of Victoria that prior to the Bill being introduced to Parliament it had no opportunity of obtaining comments from councils. I have some sympathy for councils in this State. They are increasingly being given additional duties that are not necessarily accompanied by appropriate funding. The Bill empowers councils to set fees, and one assumes the fees will relate to the costs of administering the scheme. However, the Bill also allows the government to set a maximum fee, and it is not clear how that will be established. It is impossible for councils to know whether they can set fees to cover costs. The Bill should have been properly discussed and appropriate mechanisms for setting fees should have been established. Councils should have had an input into the process of setting the fees before the Bill was introduced. I trust the Attorney-General will consider the matters raised by the Opposition, which are directed at a more efficient and equitable administration of the Bill. I trust those matters will be satisfactorily addressed when the Bill is between here and another place. Mr ROSS-EDWARDS (Shepparton)-The National Party does not oppose the Bill, but it is not enthusiastic about it. Everyone agrees that the present legislation must be changed because it is out of date and impractical. It intrigues me that because the courts are overloaded with applications the Attorney-General is handing this 1824 ASSEMBLY 23 May 1989 Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill

matter over to local government. The matter is taking up the time of magistrates and court staff so the Attorney-General is passing the responsibility to local government. A criticism of local government is that its administration is becoming top heavy; the overheads of local government are increasing all the time. Even the smallest shire council has an assistant shire secretary and an assistant shire engineer. All sorts of new jobs are being created. This Bill hands over to local government a court function that has nothing to do with local government, and that fascinates me. Until now the conditions for obtaining a second-hand dealer's licence have been consistent, but the Bill gives local government the discretion to impose conditions as it sees fit. If one applies for a second-hand dealer's licence with one council, one is likely to be treated differently from how one would be treated by a neighbouring council. That is incredible. The National Party agrees with the government and the Liberal Party that second­ hand dealers should be registered. Much stolen property is passed through the second­ hand market and it is my belief that the amount of stolen property is increasing every year. Law and order in this State has collapsed, and the government has made a decision to lump the responsibility on local government. The honourable member for Kew explained that the Bill has not been discussed with councils and that they have not had the opportunity of making their views known. The Bill places more responsibility on second-hand dealers to identify the persons with whom they do business. According to the Bill, every effort must be made to ensure that one is not dealing with stolen property. The Bill certainly puts a greater obligation on second-hand dealers. If a person believes his or her goods are being held by a second-hand dealer, he or she can take action through the Magistrates Court to recover the goods. . A second-hand dealer currently must keep goods for 4 days, and the Bill extends that period to 7 days. That can be increased by the Victoria Police, if it so desires, to 21 days and, if a further application is made, the period can be increased by an additional 21 days. The honourable member for Kew made a submission that seven days might be an appropriate time for some types of goods. However, with other goods where one is depending on a quick turnover-say, in respect of clothing which comes from a factory with a sale needing to take place quickly so that the goods can be turned into cash-four days would seem to be sufficient. However, it is an interesting piece of proposed legislation. It is an attempt to improve the Second-hand Dealers Act and the Pawnbrokers Act. I am not satisfied that it will achieve what it sets out to do, but my greatest worry is that local government will be burdened with work that I believe has nothing whatsoever to do with local government, and we will have inconsistency between councils which, fortunately, we have not at present, when matters are dealt with by the Magistrates Court. Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-There has been a crying need for some years for proposed legislation to control second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. The police have continually advised the Opposition that the proposed legislation was necessary, and I remember a couple of years ago a constituent complaining of a burglary which the police investigated. Two days after the bur$1ary the goods and jewellery that had been stolen were located in a second-hand bUSIness two or three suburbs away from Glen Waverley. The police advised the constituent that the goods were in the particular shop and the constituent went to collect them, only to be told by the second-hand