QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1313

Wednesday, 17 April 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

SELECTION OF SCHOOL STAFF Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - Will the Premier instruct the Minister for Education and Training to provide school principals with the authority to select staff and thereby restore the management of education to the professionals rather than leaving it in the hands of the bureaucracy and union officials? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition has now discovered education, although I am disappointed that he released his half-education policy to a Liberal Party lunch rather than to the education community. However, after reading it I was not surprised because the policy is actually a fraud. Mr McNamara - It's excellent. Ms KIRNER - It is difficult to tell which is the ventriloquist's doll here, isn't it? The community should decide what happens in education. The principal is an important part of education decision making but I find it strange that, despite the opposition saying that it wants to give parents a real say in education, all it is prepared to do is to back our policy, that is, that parents will have a say in selecting principals. We put that policy into effect after taking office; the Liberal Party was not prepared to put that into effect when it was in government! Mr Coleman - That's not right. Ms KIRNER - Oh yes it is, because I know who lobbied for it. We took the action to get parents involved in selecting principals. The opposition now thinks it is doing parents a favour by excluding them from choosing anyone else in the school. How is that for a half-education policy? How is that for a fraud on parents? The government is prepared to say parents ought to have a real say in education. We gave them the ability to help choose school principals. We gave them the ability to determine school policies. We gave them the responsibility for school budgets. What does the opposition's half-education policy want to do? It wants to turn back the clock and exclude parents from a real say in education and give that power only to the principal.

77825/91-43 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1314 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

I should have thought rural members of the opposition would have some concerns because two issues are involved. The first is participation, which is important not only for principals but also for all the players in education. The second is the question of equity.

Recently in New Zealand, which has the policy the opposition has copied, there was tremendous opposition to the education policies of the government not only because of the participation issue but, more importantly, because of equity. In addition to the proposal that the principal should choose the teacher is the opposition proposal that the school should be able to offer incentives to get teachers. Now that goes right back to the 1970s when schools had to fund $1 for $1 their education improvements. What happened? What happened was that the school that could raise the dollars got the good equipment. The opposition wants to extend that policy to teachers. It says that schools that have the dollars can get the good teachers. How is that for equity?

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to hear the Premier with the background noise coming from the government backbench. Obviously the backbench members of the government are not listening to the Premier and are engaged in private conversations. I ask you to assist us in listening to the Premier by urging the backbench members of the government to keep silent while the Premier is making her reply.

The SPEAKER - Order! I must say that at the time the honourable member raised his point of order a high level of audible conversation was not apparent to the Chair. However, I remind all honourable members that they should remain silent while the Premier is answering the question.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I am not surprised that the Leader of the National Party wants to distract me while I give a reply to the question because it is yet another disagreement between the Liberal and National parties. There is no way equity in education can be delivered by having an incentive policy for teachers based on school wealth because that would be going back to the dark days of the 1960s under Liberal governments when those schools that had money could get what they wanted and those schools that did not have money - the rural schools and inner suburban schools - would not get the quality teachers. I am happy to lead an attack on that policy and I believe I will be leading it with the parents in country schools. I have done it before and I shall do it again. There is no standing for an opposition that is prepared to say that the quality of education should be based on incentives that are available only to those schools that can pay. SAVINGS IN EDUCATION Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I direct the attention of the Premier to comments made by the former Director of Policy and Research in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the most senior Labor Party adviser position in the government, Mr Mike Richards, that savings of $300 million could be made in the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1315

education portfolio, and I ask: will the Premier ensure that the Minister for Education and Training reorganises the administration of his Ministry to achieve those savings? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - It is certainly the responsibility of government to ensure that departments operate within expenditure constraints. I was fascinated to see that the Leader of the Opposition's half-policy release on education indicated he was prepared to put in some of his ideas, or I should say some of the ideas of some of his ideologues in the back room, and he did not put any costings in. Wasn't that interesting! An opposition puts up an education policy without any costings for that policy! I am not surprised because the Leader of the National Party wants to know if the government is prepared to cut $300 million out of the education budget. Indeed, the shadow Minister for . Education, who knows so much about education that they have not even let him ask a question on education in this House, said recently at an education conference in a rural area of the State that he thought it might just be possible to cut $400 million off education.

Mr Hayward interjected.

Ms KIRNER - Not my advisers; $400 million out of education - is that what the opposition wants?

Mr McNamara - Three hundred million.

Ms KIRNER - All right, $300 million. Let US look at what it would mean if $300 million was cut out of the education portfolio. When I was the Minister for Education I had a look at the structure of education and I determined, along with people like the honourable member for Ballarat North, that there was too much fat in the middle management area, which was inappropriate and as Minister for Education --

Mr McNamara interjected.

Ms KIRNER - The issue is the National Party wants $300 million cut out of education.

Mr McNamara interjected.

Ms KIRNER - Mr Richards is certainly not my adviser; maybe you have not caught up with that!

The opposition wants $300 million cut ou~ of education. I want to know where they believe it should be cut from because even if the whole of middle management in education is wiped out --

Mr McNamara - That is not what I am saying; that is what your adviser says!

Ms KIRNER - He is not my adviser.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the National Party has asked his question. I ask him to remain silent and also to cease waving around a piece of paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1316 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Ms KIRNER - I suppose he has to wave around a piece of paper. He appears to need a number of props to ask questions these days. Certainly he needs a piece of paper because he has not worked out how he will cut $300 million from education. Even if all of middle management were cut out of education - all those people that honourable members opposite write to me about people in the support centres that the opposition does not want cut back; people who manage WorkCare, who the opposition do not want cut back; and the curriculum experts who the opposition does not want cut back-- Mr HAYWARD (Prahran) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the question was specific. It referred to a comment by a former senior adviser to the government who talked about cutting costs without cutting quality. There is no question about cutting quality, but it is about cutting costs. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring the Premier back to the question and ask her to address it. The SPEAKER - Order! The question was asked in general terms about whether the Premier would direct a cut of $300 million in education. The Premier is indicating in her view the consequences of taking such an action. There is no point of order. Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Even if all middle management were taken out -­ Mr McNamara interjected. Ms KIRNER - You should not ask questions that are an absolute gift to the government, should you? The Liberal opposition should not have policies it has not costed. It said it would cut $300 million from education. I said you cannot get -- Mr McNamara - Your advisers said that. Ms KIRNER - You said I cannot get that -- The SPEAKER - Order! Honourable members on my left have complained about the length of question time. The Premier's answer is being unnecessarily extended by the number of interjections from my left and also some from my right. I ask all honourable members to remain silent. Ms KIRNER - I have said that that cannot be cut from middle management. The only way it can be achieved is by taking teachers out of the schools, increasing class sizes and failing to provide ancillary staff - certainly not by providing the bursars promised by the Leader of the Opposition. The promise of a cut of $300 million out of education in Victoria is not an acceptable cut to the government and indeed the kind of advice that was given by the former adviser mentioned by the Leader of the National Party is the reason why there is a no confidence motion against the education Minister in Tasmania. The decisions recently made in Tasmania were based on trying to cut education expenditure in the way you want to take $300 million out of Victorian education. This could require cutting out every small rural school in the State. Mr McNamara interjected. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1317

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Premier to direct her remarks to the Chair, and I specifically ask the Leader of the National Party to remain silent. I have already cautioned him a number of times; I warn him. I shall not do so again. If necessary, I shall take the appropriate action. Ms KIRNER - The Leader of the National Party has accidently flushed out the costings for the opposition's intentions for education, which would decimate rural education and increase class sizes in Victorian schools, and I can understand that he is embarrassed and constantly interjects. That is the point I have been making for the past couple of weeks: question time has been held to ransom by this tension-ridden opposition, but when it comes to the policies and their costings, the opposition has none. One scratches beneath the surface and finds that the opposition is divided and would wreck education in this State. 1990-91 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Mr BATCHELOR (Thomastown) - Will the Premier advise the House of progress being made by government departments in achieving their 1990-91 Budget allocations? Ms KIRNER (premier) - When I became Premier I set a clear target of reduction in government expenditure, particularly in the three big Ministries. I am pleased to report that two of those major Ministries - education and health - are on target and the Ministry of Transport is making strides towards that. Mr Cooper - That is not what your Minister said. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Mornington is out of order. Mr Cooper - Is he wrong? The SPEAKER - Order! I remind the honourable member for Mornington that he must respect the directions of the Chair. If necessary, I shall take the appropriate action to ensure that he does. Ms KIRNER - The Ministry of Education and Training was required to make savings of $92 million from its base level for this year. Honourable members interjecting. Ms KIRNER - I hear the interjections from the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Berwick that it is not enough, but the savings were achieved without a diminution of services. They were made by maintaining services to children with intellectual disabilities. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! Question time cannot proceed in an orderly manner if honourable members continue to interject and attempt to put supplementary questions by way of interjection during a reply by a Minister. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was warned yesterday, and the honourable member for Syndal to remain silent. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1318 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Ms KIRNER - The saving was achieved, but the government recently increased the funding for integration aides, although the honourable member for Brighton has such little regard for figures that he thinks the funding was reduced. The savings were achieved by reducing non-school-based staff by approximately 500 positions, which is the appropriate way of tackling public sector inefficiency. The operating expenses of the Office of Schools Administration in the Rialto building were cut by 17 per cent, and staffing to post-primary schools was reorganised within a framework acceptable to teachers and parents and having regard to the quality of teaching. At the same time, the government increased pay for teachers and will introduce advanced skills teachers. That is a remarkable result for education - a $92 million reduction and an improvement in areas of priority. The health budget is also expected to come in on target at a time when health has never been under greater pressure, as the population ages and as health treatment becomes much more expensive with the kinds of operations that are demanded and are available these days. Despite the cuts in health budgets which have been made the number of patients treated in public hospitals increased by 1 per cent over the past financial year to a record of 638000 patients. Also, hospitals like Maroondah, Western and Frankston have additional services. Sunshine Hospital, which the liberals were prepared to leave as a shell when they were in government, is now a major service provider to the people of the western suburbs.

The government can set its financial targets, get them right and meet them in terms of expenditure. You don't like it. I know you don't like the fact that we have been able to deliver our expenditure.

. Mr Brown interjected.

Ms KIRNER - The Leader of the Opposition says, "Get it right". He does not like it when I tell him that we have got it right on expenditure in two of the major areas and we are now moving towards doing that in transport.

The Minister for Transport and I are the first to admit that there are still challenges in getting inefficiencies out of the transport system but they are being addressed and the requirement on the Minister for Transport to reduce staffing this year by 1500 is proceeding to target. That is the kind of issue that our government believes it has the responsibility to address; to set a financial expenditure target in the Budget and to meet it. For the next Budget it will be even tougher, but we will again set an expenditure target that reduces public expenditure inefficiencies but improves the Public Service for the people of Victoria. SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACTS Mr HAYWARD (Prahran) - I ask the Premier: will the government save more than $50 million identified by the Auditor-General as being available from the contracting out of the cleaning of schools and other government institutions or will the government continue to succumb to union resistance? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1319

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - It appears that the shadow Minister for education has just come out of the shadows after my challenging him on three questions and I am impressed to see him here. I agree and have agreed for the past two years that the matter of -­ Mr Brown interjected. Ms KIRNER - It is amazing, the only contribution to this debate from the Leader of the Opposition is "ah ha, ah ha". I agree with the education community that cleaning services in schools are too expensive. Mr Heffernan interjected. Ms KIRNER - You do not think so? When I was Minister for Education I put into place an opportunity to make savings; but not enough in my view, Mr Speaker. However, the current Minister for Education and Training has taken further steps and reached agreement in front of the Industrial Relations Commission on further savings and I will be expecting further savings in cleaning in the incoming budget for education. DEBT RETIREMENT AUTHORITY Mr GAVIN (Coburg) - Will the Treasurer inform the House of the steps he has taken to establish the Debt Retirement Authority? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I thank the honourable member for his question. It is interesting that members opposite treat this issue as a matter of -- Mr Leigh interjected. Mr ROPER - That they treat this matter as a matter of joviality. It is not a matter of fun; it is a very serious matter. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! I warn the honourable member for Syndal. He has been cautioned a number of times too ay; he persists with loud interjections. H he persists further I shall take the appropriate action. Mr ROPER - This is a very important issue and the government has taken it extremely seriously. I can announce to the House that the membership of the Debt Retirement Authority has now been finalised and the first quarterly report of the authority is now out. As was explained when the matter was before Parliament, it has been important that some private sector people be involved in giving advice in this area. I am delighted to say that two most significant figures in the Victorian business community have agreed to be the external appointments to the board. The first is Mr Bill Gurry, who is currently the Chairman-- Honourable members interjecting. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1320 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Mr ROPER - Mr Gurry is currently the Chairman of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) and also a member of the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Treasurer, without assistance. Mr ROPER - He is highly regarded in the business community, as opposed to quite spurious and disgraceful attacks that have been made on him elsewhere. Mr Gurry will bring the range of his experience and capacity to the authority. The honourable member for Hawthorn may well laugh at that; certainly the honourable member for Brighton is not laughing about that at all at the moment! Secondly, Mr Ian Ferres -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Treasurer does not require the assistance of the honourable member for Richmond or the Minister for Agriculture. I suggest they remain silent. Mr ROPER - Secondly, Mr Ian Ferres also is a member of the authority. He is the Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Victorian trade and industry advisory board and, again, has a long, experienced and extremely important history and background in financial matters. To those two members are added two officers of the Treasury, as provided for in the legislation. Already the authority has taken action in terms of debt retirement and has a surplus that is now being considered as to its best use in terms of the retirement of further debt. Also, the authority - comprised of the four people to whom I have referred - is preparing a detailed debt repayment strategy to present to me in the very near future. In setting up the Debt Retirement Authority it has been made dear by the government that it regards this as a most significant element that needs to be addressed. The government treats it extremely seriously and I am sure that, with Mr Gurry's and Mr Ferres's capacity to provide advice, the government and the people of Victoria will be greatly assisted in dealing with the problems that all States and governments face in dealing with their financial requirements, particularly at this point in the recession.

VICfORIAN CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION Mr HAYWARD (Prahran) - I direct a further question without notice to the Premier: in view of the criticisms of the Victorian education system by the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, in which Mr Carr described Victorian education as "trendy nonsense", will the Premier direct the Minister for Education and Training to increase external assessment for most Victorian certificate of education subjects to at least 50 per cent, to ensure public confidence in the VCE? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1321

Mrs Hirsh interjected. The SPEAKER - Order! I do not intend to call the honourable member for Wantirna to answer the question and I suggest she remain silent. Mr Kennett - Why don't you warn her? Why don't you warn her? Mr Micallef interjected. The SPEAKER - Order! I do not require the assistance of honourable members from either side of the House. I advise the honourable member for Springvale that he is out of order in interjecting and, particularly, in interrupting the Premier's reply. I ask him to remain silent; if he does not, I will be forced to take the appropriate acti

If the opposition had taken any notice at all of their party members on the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board (VCAB) it would have known that VCAB has the power to recommend what will be the assessments for the VCE. I find it amazing that the excellent work put in by the Honourable David Evans and the Honourable Haddon Storey, as well as other honourable members in this place on the VCE, is now being ignored because someone in a back room of the Liberal Party has taken an ideological view of the VCE. It is an absolute outrage that you people in opposition -- The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Premier to address the Chair. Ms KIRNER - It is an outrage that members of the opposition should fraudulently claim that they will radically restructure the Victorian certificate of education, thereby putting the minds of a number of young people in our State in turmoil, when in fact what they are going to do is possible within the present structure. I am pleased that, despite all its posturing, the opposition has determined that the VCE is here to stay, something it said was unacceptable to the community. But the opposition was told by the community that the VCE is what it wanted: the community wanted to get rid of cramming and wanted an opportunity for all our young people to succeed in the VCE; the community wanted an opportunity for excellence in education and for technology to be seen as being as important as literacy and numeracy subjects; and the community wanted the opportunity for our children to stay at school and succeed - and we have delivered all that. I believe that the one important issue in the Liberal education policy is the statement that the Victorian certificate of education is here to stay, and I must say I am delighted by that. PETmONS

1322 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

PETITIONS The Clerk - I have received the following petitions for presentation to Parliament Phillip Island market To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled: The shire president and councillors of Phillip Island. The town planner. The humble petition of the undersigned citizen of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth: I am in favour of the market as it is and its present permit. I am in favour of Amendment 1.24 with no restrictions to the market or stalls. I am also in favour of the market shed and extension application No. 90/2505. I also agree with the planner that no other market be required for the next ten or twenty years. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government take immediate action to pass this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Brown (986 signatures) Board of Works inspections 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 respectively sheweth: That the proposal by the Board of Works to reduce the incidence of plumbing and drainage inspection by 75 per cent is unacceptable because of the severe detrimental effect such a proposal would nave on the plumbing industry, property owners, ratepayers, and the health of the community in the board's metropolitan regions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will support the current level of inspections being retained. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Honeywood (1115 signatures) Altona District Hospital 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 opposed to the proposal to move the maternity services from the Altona District Hospital to the planned Hoppers Crossing hospital, and to any other proposal aimed at downgrading the current function of the Altona District Hospital. The Altona District Hospital provides an essential service to the residents of Altona and nearby areas and fulfils a vital role in health care in Altona. Altona needs its own hospital providing obstetric services so that local residents can have quick and easy access to a high quality maternity service. The Altona District Hospital has provided an excellent and efficient service to the local community for nearly 50 years. It is a hospital that was established through the efforts of local people and there must be no reduction of hospital services in Altona. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1323

Your petitioners request that high quality, local and much needed obstebic and surgical services continue to be available within the City of Altona. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Ms Kimer (60 signatures)

Laid on tab le.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Ministerial portfolios The SPEAKER presented report of Auditor-General on Ministerial portfolios, April 1991.

Laid on tab le.

Ordered to be printed.

VICTORIAN RELIEF COMMITTEE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Returned from Council with message relating to amendments.

Ordered to be considered next day.

APPROPRIATION MESSAGE

Message read recommending appropriation for Works and Services (Ancillary Provisions, 1991-92, No. 1) Bill

COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL

Introduction and first reading

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) introduced a Bill to establish the Office of Commissioner for the Environment, with responsibility for collecting information and reporting to Parliament on the state of the environment, to amend the Public Service Act 1974 and the Annual Reporting Act 1983 and for other purposes.

Read first time. FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES PENALTIES) BILL

1324 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 17 April 1991

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES PENALTIES) BILL Introduction and first reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) introduced a Bill to amend the Fisheries Act 1968 to impose new penalties in relation to offences relating to abalone and for other purposes.

Read first time.

RENTAL BOND BOARD BILL Introduction and first reading Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) introduced a Bill to establish a Rental Bond Board, to provide for the payment of bonds to the Rental Bond Board, to establish a Tenancy and Residency Fund and to provide for the investment of and payments out of the fund, to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1980, the Caravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Act 1988 and the Rooming Houses Act 1990 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

WATTLE PARK LAND BILL Introduction and first reading Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport> introduced a Bill to provide for the transfer of the parkland known as Wattle Park to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and for other purposes.

Read first time.

DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 26 March; motion of Mr KENNAN (Minister for Major Projects). Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - In leading the debate on behalf of the opposition, I make these introductory remarks. Any good hotelier or major resort developer knows that geographical position counts for everything in his or her business. Indeed, who could deny that the main Docklands area of Melbourne, bounded as it is by Spencer Street to the east, Footscray Road to the north, Moonee Ponds Creek to the west and the Yarra River to the south, is ideally placed to be developed as the next gateway to Melbourne? DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BaL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1325

The core area alone accounts for 300 hectares of developable land and the greater Docklands area accounts for up to 21 square kilometres of land which, if necessary, could be developed for commercial, residential and industrial purposes. Opportunities such as this to embark on major inner urban renewal come along very rarely and, I suggest, our generation is privileged with this Bill to be able to put a stamp on the development of Melbourne that will extend well into the 21st century and will be for the future benefit of all Victorians. Many people say it is the responsibility of each generation to hand the State and the country on to the next generation in better shape than they found it. As a result of this government's pathetic economic policies and series of economic scandals, our generation will be the first that is not able to hand the State on to its children in better economic shape than we found it. All we have left to hand on to the next generation is hopefully a better environment. We hope that with this Bill we can at least set that in train so that as a generation we can say, "Okay, we bankrupted the State for the next generation but at least we did something in terms of major inner urban renewal of this beautiful city of ours". That is possibly all we will be able to be proud of at the end of our time. Looking at the development of inner urban areas throughout the world one finds there have been some mixed experiences and I will allude to those later in my speech. One can look to experiences such as the London Docklands - some of the problems experienced there could provide an indication for similar issues that may arise for us - and Granville Island in Vancouver, another excellent inner urban project. Goser to home, we have the Darling Harbour scheme in New South Wales, a project that has many lessons for us. Any good hotelier, hotel broker or tourist resort developer worth his or her salt also knows that position costs. What will the Docklands project cost us in future generations? The opposition knows full well it has a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that, to the extent that the Docklands Authority Bill involves public sector capital input, the taxpayer will receive value for money and a genuine recoupment of costs from the private sector when the project takes off. The people of Victoria have been left with a bitter taste from other recent major projects supported by this State Labor government. Under the government's Pharaoh-like policy of building monuments we have witnessed a drain that has become a veritable flood of taxpayers' dollars on projects such as the National Tennis Centre and, more recently, the World Congress Centre. Monumentalism as practised by other Labor State governments, such as the previous New South Wales variety, usually involved Ministers' inscriptions on plaques, which is all very well if one wants "Laurie Brereton" on every road sign along the highways. This government has gone even further down the road of glory with major projects. It believes in monumentalism of the red ink variety. The government has left to the people of Victoria the John Cain $16 million a year memorial National Tennis Centre debt, the Joan Kirner $400 million World Congress DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1326 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Centre mortgage and, with this Bill, the Jim Kennan $600 million caveat. One could be unkind enough to suggest the government has got it right in that each of these major project debts is at least in direct proportion to the ego of the respective Labor politician concerned. We can understand this Minister's rush to join the honour roll of debt providers to this State. As a responsible opposition we have a duty - a fiduciary duty - to rein in this Minister's excesses and blind exuberance.

As evidence of his blind exuberance, we have only to look at the crucial issue of community consultation on the Bill. Community consultation is not the forte of this Minister for Major Projects. The last major project he was responsible for was the MetTicket, the $11 million public relations debacle instigated solely by him - railroaded by him, if you like. What community consultation took place on that project? He surveyed 100 people. That was it! That is what he meant by community consultation. It has been left to the new Minister for Transport to pick up the pieces. He had to fork out another few million dollars to carry out a retrospective survey to find out what went wrong. The opposition has some concerns about the so-called community consultation under this Minister. I turn to the image and the reality of the public consultation that occurred prior to this Bill being introduced. Obviously a number of local residents and interested parties stand to be seriously affected by the creation of the Docklands Authority. One would think they have the right to know what is in the Bill and what is planned as a result of the docklands development. The government supports wide-ranging consultation in theory but let us consider what has occurred in practice. I refer firstly to the proposed Docklands Authority Bill discussion paper. On page 1 of this document the government held its hand over its heart and said:

The government's aim is to create a sound partnership with private sector and community interests to ensure the success of the Docklands redevelopment. Details of the public consultation process are given in this discussion paper with the appropriate contact address and phone numbers. I encourage you to consider the options outlined in this, and other documents the government is releasing, and have your say on the future shape of Docklands. That is signed not by the Minister at the table but by David White, the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, then the Minister for Industry and Economic Planning. On page 2 the document says:

By April 1991 the government will receive the initial results of the public consultation. On the basis of this information, the government will decide whether to introduce a Docklands Authority Bill into Parliament. There is the first lie. April 1991 was meant to be the date on which public consultation was finished but the Bill has been sitting in this place for over three weeks. That was mid-March. When we consider the Premier's press release we know that the lie is being DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1327

told. I quote from the press release dated 17 December and headed IIDocklands Option Report Released": In twelve months' time we will have a proposal for developing Docklands which is already market-tested, already publicly consulted and we will have a Docklands Authority to go with it. The Premier was looking twelve months down the track. She goes on to say: The Victorian government is extremely excited about the potential offered by docklands, but it is important that we define the correct strategy for securing the best use of the site. To this end, community participation is vital. Docklands is something we should all be enthusiastic about becoming involved with. The people of Melbourne were excited about being involved in it but what opportunities did they have to become involved? In practice they had four public meetings, which were held in the morning when not many people in Melbourne would have been able to give up half of their day to have a say on a major future development project for their city. The transcript of those public meetings shows that questions were asked on whether other forums could be provided in the evenings, but the suggestions were knocked back and thrown in the faces of the questioners. The discussion paper and the Premier's press release stated that the process of public consultation on the Docklands Authority Bill was well down the track but the actual transcripts of the public meetings provide evidence of the Minister trying to railroad public consultation, just as the government did with the MetTicket $11 million drain on taxpayers. I shall quote the second page of the transcript of the first public meeting held at the MMBW theatrette on 19 February, only seven weeks ago. Keep in mind the Bill has been on the Notice Paper for three weeks. Ms Helen Davies responded to a question from Mr Ewan Ogilvy. The question was: The second point relates to timelines for the possible introduction of Docklands Authority legislation. It seems as though the community is being asked to basically finalise its view on those four packages of land uses. Could you comment on that? Ms Davies, who is the head of the Docklands task force public consultation process, and employed by the government, replied: I don't want to steal Tony's thunder later on. Certainly the consultation hearing group has within its tenns of reference consultation in relation to the proposed Docklands Authority and the Bill. I think the sorts of issues I know Tony is wrestling with at the moment concern the need - there seems to be a fairly positive response to the notion of an authority - to start planning the legislative process at a relatively early stage so that by the end of the year there will be the opportunity to not only have introduced the legislation, but have had this laid over for the spring session, and then introduce the authority at the end of the year, should this be required. The Bill was introduced into this Chamber by the Minister three weeks ago when the public servant employed to coordinate public consultation told the people of Melbourne only seven weeks ago that the Bill would not be introduced until the end of the year. She DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BH.L

1328 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

said the authority would not be set up until the end of the year and that the Bill would not be introduced until the spring session. Perhaps the Minister could respond by saying what has changed. Do we smell an election in the wind? Is that the reason? Is the government hunting for a good news story without proper public consultation? It might earn some good brownie points and some nice articles in the press but it might leave the population of this State with another $600 million debt to pay for. That is the question the Minister must answer. Other parts of the transcript of the public meetings reveal that the good citizens of Melbourne continually asked similar questions about the public consultation process being hijacked or railroaded. On page 17 of the transcript of the same meeting we find a reply by Mr Ward to a question: The authority, if and when set up, would take on a marketing role from then on which is Specified as one of its functions. In the meantime, the marketing role would be carried out by the current agencies that are involved. A Ms Rayson asked in response to this: Am I to understand, from what Mr Ward has just said, that in the next week or so teams are going out to speak to development investors to ask them what they wish to have on the site? If that comment is as I heard it, why are we going through a public consultation about what the public sees as the right, most viable and most useable population of Melbourne to have on site if the developers are going to tell you what they want long before the public consultation has been gone through? That was another concern raised. Equally, on page 20 of the same transcript Mr Ogilvy asks: How negotiable is the situation in relation to the management arrangements? As I understood Mr Ward earlier, there are a number of options discussed in the discussion paper and you are seeking comments on those options. But then as I recall it, the Premier, on the release of the documents, said that there would be an authority at the end of this year. By that, I concluded perhaps that the authority was given most attention in the discussion paper. So here we have a continual reference to the fact that public consultation was going to take place throughout 1991 in the lead-up to the creation of the authority at the end of this year. Again at a second meeting at Footscray Town Hall on 26 February, some six weeks ago, similar concerns were raised by different residents of Melbourne, and I quote a comment on page 12 of the transcript from a Mr Madden: We are informed that there is draft legislation in hand, and whilst it's competent for people to discuss the draft legislation with the legislators, I would put it to you that it's very difficult, sometimes impossible, to change legislation unless you have got the numbers in the Upper House, once a draft becomes the draft legislation as such. Mr Madden goes on to raise concerns about the timing. In fact, he concludes by saying: I express my concern that the same level of consultation being afforded to the community at large in terms of the options has not been afforded to the appropriate management operation. DO CK LANDS AUTHORITY BaL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1329

Moving on to the final public meeting on 16 March - a very short time ago indeed, considering the Bill was introduced the following week - on pages 15 and 16 of the transcript of that meeting another citizen of this city asks a question on the same matter. The question is from a Mr Short:

There is an urgency being put upon you by the government for some reason. There seem to be two time frames going on between what you are willing to do and also what the Docklands is trying to do which is to look to three decades' time in the consultation process. Are there competing interests and why is the government so interested in having an authority established? What is the necessity to get it established anyway? Isn't it more important to decide on the plans? The authority is just a mechanism involved in establishing what needs to be done. A Mr Gordon asked a similar question:

First off, I would like to comment on the timing of things. We have this meeting which is today, the 16th or something, and in the initial thing it says written submissions would be accepted at any time up to the end of April 1991. In this one here we are cut suddenly short. It says public comment and submissions should be sent in by Friday, 22 March. A sudden abbreviation in time is not welcomed at all, but it's pushing us along. As I mentioned earlier the only document that the public of Melbourne were privy to was the one in which they were told that public consultation was open to them until the end of April 1991, yet the Minister has the audacity to introduce a Bill in this House in mid-March, a month and a half before the public consultation period was due to finish and the Minister then has the audacity to tell us that the public has been widely consulted.

In fact, the publi~ has had the rug pulled from l:lnderneath them, as I have shown. The Minister has a responsibility to inform us of his hidden agenda. What is his reason for pushing through the Bill today? Is it because there is an election in the wind? The Minister may like to explain why he has curtailed public consultation on the Bill and why he has also pulled the rug out from underneath the task force members - the bureaucrats paid to facilitate this process - and why he is adopting similar tactics to those adopted in the Met ticket fiasco.

In addition, looking at the input from interested community groups we see that in today's Herald-Sun the Melbourne City Council, after voting on the Docklands Authority Bill, under the heading, "Council slams the Docklands Bill" states:

Melbourne City Council has opposed the establishment of the Docklands Authority, labelling it a potential sovereign State accountable to no-one. The council voted this week to oppose the Bill which went before State Parliament yesterday. So the Melbourne City Council is raising similar concerns to those raised by the residents. Concerns have also been put forward by the Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia. Concerns have been expressed by the North Melbourne Residents Association, and a whole raft of questions have been put as to why the government is rushing through the Bill. DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BaL

1330 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

I will quote again from the Herald-Sun, this time from 23 March, under the heading, "Docklands a $400 million mistake." It provoked a major row through Cabinet and Caucus approving legislation to establish a Docklands Authority to oversee development. Community figures said that not only was this done before the deadline for community comment, but that the Bill awarded the authority "horrifying" planning powers. Again in the same article the newspaper states: There is concern the government may move too fast, to score political points. The newspaper quotes Mr Madden, who is head of the Western Region Commission: ... the government was in a hurry to prove "what a great magnificent project" the IX>cklands was. A spokesman for the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development said: ... that did not close the consultative process. "These things are debated with great energy in Parliament". Mr Madden further stated:

"But we're not going to let them ride roughshod over us". Equally the Weekend Australian of 30 March, under the heading "Docklands Bill opens can of worms" made another reference to the lack of consultation: Interest groups from across the political spectrum have also labelled the consultation phase a farce. The article goes on to highlight elements of the process that have been railroaded by the Minister. So we have obvious evidence that there is a problem here in timing. The legislation has been rushed through. It should not have been brought on so soon given the commitments made earlier by the government. The other important point is that on a recent tour of the Docklands area hosted by the Docklands task force opposition members were informed that leases on lands were of the order of one and a half years only. We have since discovered that a company known as JuPps Motor Auctions has put in place $1.5 million of capital expenditure in the Docklands area on the basis of having signed a ten-year lease, we are led to believe, for use of that Docklands area for the purpose of motor car auctions. If the government is going about signing ten-year leases for this area of land it intends to develop so quickly, as the Bill would have us believe, then already we are finding that real open development options are being stymied and that any hope for open slather and for being able to sit down at a drawing board and come up with new ideas unhindered by compromised situations has already been lost to the people of Melbourne through leases such as the ten-year lease for a motor car auction company. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1331

Similarly I ask: have the owners of the railways administration building, which is, after all, private land contained within the core Docklands area, been consulted on their requirements and allowed to have input on the development, because that is a major building under the Docklands development? The owners of the railways administration building have spent approximately $4 million. They own the land upon which that building is built and the question is whether their interests will be taken into account by the government, given that that is a parcel of private land within the Docklands area, which is after all dominated by Crown land. Another area of concern to the opposition is the fact that we are dealing with a site which is so polluted that it is mentioned in the Contaminated Sites Register issued by the Environment Protection Authority, the most recent report being in March 1991. Mention is made at page 29 of the Environment Protection Authority Contaminated Sites Register that the Docklands is an area of major concern to that authority. It states: Present land use - freight storage, dock activities, rail yard activities, and customs. Past land use - gasworks at the South Dock Land, rail yard activities including transformer repairs and I:hckland activities including treatment with cresol. The size of the old gasworks site is 125 ha, both the rail yards and North Docks are 600 ha in size. It further states: Contaminants of concern: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, phenolic compounds. A $20 million clean-up bill has already been detailed as required for the site. The government does not have a good track record in dealing with estimated costs for clean-up provisions. The Bayside project was supposed to have cost the Victorian taxpayers $4 million but because of similar contaminants in that area that has cost more than $20 million over the past few years.

If one adopts a similar ratio for the Docklands polluted site the initial estimate of $20 million could blowout to $80 million or $100 million before anything is built on the site. That is an obvious concern that has been raised with the opposition. That concern was also raised in the public meetings by a number of residents who requested information from Mr Frankish of the task force about the costs that could be incurred. Therefore the Minister should give some commitment about the actual costs that may be involved in cleaning up the site before any construction commences. Another area of concern is the authority's implementation of its powers and the fact that this needs to be a staged process. I refer to a paragraph headed ''Relationship of proposed Bill to other legislation" at page 13 of the discussion paper as distributed to the public; it states: Generally the proposed Bill does not interfere with the operation of other legislation and the authority would not be in a more favourable position than any other government agency. It would be required to comply, for example, with the Environment Effects Act, the Environment Protection Act and any relevant planning scheme. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BD..L

1332 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

That may be all good rhetoric but the plan actually invests the authority with unprecedented planning controls and with virtually unprecedented powers over and above the interests of any local government authorities in surrounding areas. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to tell Victorians that the authority will not have a Big Brother attitude to matters of concern to local residents, and to concerns of private sector owners of land on site and to owners of any land adjacent to the Docklands. The Bill will provide power to the authority, if given approval by the Minister, to acquire compulsorily any land within the periphery of the core Docklands region. There is a concern not only on our part but also on the part of the Melbourne City Council because as already noted only this week it voted against supporting the Bill. There is also a concern on behalf of residents' groups and others who have contacted the opposition raising similar concerns about public consultation mechanisms. We need to ensure the Bill will not be implemented in a hurry. We should learn from the London Docklands experience, and we need to take precautions. The London authorities rushed their project. Only about five years ago they built factories and commercial premises which they are now demolishing because they have been found to be not a fitting land use for the area. The opposition has real concerns that if the Bill is railroaded through Parliament and if the authority is established and functioning, and making recommendations to the Minister that may be implemented before the next election, costly mistakes similar to those made in London may well occur. The community must be assured that the implementation of the Bill and of the Docklands plans becomes a staged process. We must ensure the authority does not become over-powerful and is beholden to no-one especially when the environmental effects statements are involved, as I have already mentioned. Equally, representations from the Building Owners and Managers Association, and from the Committee for Melbourne, have indicated that the authority should not be a weak body because if it is too weak it will be unable to coordinate on a proper basis all the inputs and factors required to ensure the Docklands project takes off. Therefore, a balance needs to be drawn between having an authority that is too powerful and an authority that may be too weak. The opposition recognises that the government has had difficulties in working out the proper formula and the proper powers that should be vested in such an authority. Another major concern is about how much the Docklands will cost in terms of public infrastructure requirements. We have heard about roads that will cross the Spencer Street rail yards, and about extensions to Collins Street and Bourke Street. We have heard about costly re-routing of major traffic and railway networks. We have heard about the infrastructure and land-fill requirements, and other matters that will be required to be in place, in many cases, well before land can be sold for private sector development and well before the Victorian taxpayers see a return on their investment Therefore, I ask the Minister to reply and tell the House what the Victorian taxpayer will be up for. What costs are envisaged? Will it be $600 million as we are told on current DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1333

estimates or will it be $1 billion by the time some of the road re-routings and infrastructure requirements such as the Western Bypass and other detailed matters contained in the strategic options paper published by the government some time ago are implemented?

Will the infrastructure requirements be paid for up front by borrowings from overseas banks, as is the government's habit, or will there be some other process? The opposition has definite concerns in that regard. Given all the facts I have indicated today about the polluted site difficulties, the infrastructure terms and particularly the lack of public consultation, and the fact that justice has not been seen to be done in this case, the opposition has a concern that leads it to proposing amendments to the Bill.

The amendments the opposition will propose, as I will flag them in my speech, will be the subject of debate after being moved in the Upper House. Firstly, we intend to set out an outer boundary on the Docklands area. That will take into account the concerns of the residents' groups, of the councils and of all the parties intrerested in this development to ensure the Docklands do not extend, for example, to Geelong and perhaps to North Melbourne.

A reading of the Bill discloses that the Docklands geographical area can be extended at the whim of the Minister or the authority. We intend to place a geographical boundary on the Docklands area by moving an amendment in the other place.

Also by amendment we intend to create a limit on any sale of Crown land in the area. That may be by way of an amendment to the Land (Reservations Removal) Bill or it may be the subject of an amendment to this Bill. The concern is obvious. As I mentioned, we have evidence of the government assigning ten-year leases to a motor car auction company - I believe the company is JuPP Motors Pty Ltd - in relation to a $1.5 million expenditure on a surety that the company will be in business there for ten years. Therefore, because of its concerns about consolidated revenue and how it will fund things, the government is already doing deals. We will not let the government sell off land to be developed in a way that is not in the interests of the overall development of the Docklands site. The opposition will move an amendment in another place to ensure that the government will not be able to sell off Crown land willy-nilly.

Those are the two amendments that we intend to move in another place. Also, I should announce that the work and membership of the authority's board will be reviewed upon our election to government. We have concerns about the people that the government intends to appoint to this authority. We have already heard that there will be a mandatory requirement to appoint two trade union representatives to the board. We have already heard a number of names mentioned for possible board membership. We are genuinely concerned about whether those people will be correctly qualified to ensure that the Docklands development takes off and also that those people will be politically neutral, as it were, and above board in their implementation of so-called social justice policies and so on that the government intends to foist upon the people of Victoria. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BaL

1334 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Of course, local councils have a legitimate right to have input into the authority's workings. We support the view that local councils should have some role to play through one of the advisory committees that the government has detailed in the Bill. A number of advisory committees will be established which will be able to give advice to the authority and, through the authority, to the Minister for Major Projects about how the implementation should take place and to ensure that the interests of councils are somewhat protected. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you also may have an interest in this matter, given that the Docklands could extend to Werribee if this Bill is implemented in the way that the government seems to be suggesting! Having flagged our amendments, it is important now to refer to the differences in vision between the government and the opposition about what the Docklands should comprise. We all know that the government is very good at drawing lines on maps and using taxpayers' dollars for million dollar plans and sketches, million dollar strategic options papers and so on. This government has broken all records when it comes to wasting taxpayers' dollars on pretty pictures and glossy magazines to promote government policies and propaganda. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to provide some vision for this area, given that we will be coming to government in the future. Our vision for the Docklands area is that it be a new gateway to Melbourne, if you like, that will be accessible to families and will open up the foreshore and the riverside to the public for recreation and enjoyment. We are concerned that, in contrast, the government envisages the Docklands as being a whiz-bang casino, entertainment and nightclub precinct. If that occurred, it would not be accessible to families and the general public. It would be an area dominated by car parks for gamblers. In an attempt to try to prop up its revenue shortfalls, the government intends to have some glittery crystal palace taking up the prime area of land in the Docklands. The whole area will be dominated by some night facility that the average Melbourne family will not be able to enjoy. Of course our ideas about where in Melbourne a casino should be placed are different from those being pushed and promoted by the government. We know that the government examined with various developers what was in it for them when considering where the casino should be located. We know, based on what is occurring in the Federal Parliament at present, that the Labor Party has a tradition of looking after its mates in this context. Our vision for the Docklands is very different from that which the government is trying to promote. Concerns have been raised at public meetings about the government's plans for the casino and how they will impact on the greater Docklands area. As recorded at page 14 of the transcript of the public meeting held at the Waverley Civic Centre on 16 March, a citizen of Melbourne, Mr Spinley, said: There were plans which included theatres and cinemas and things like that but nothing like a casino. I'm presuming a casino will be a fairly substantial structure bringing a lot of people into the area and it doesn't seem consistent to me with the density of population if you are planning OOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday. 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1335

to set up a community of 25 000 people which will have its own infrastructure, schools and housing and kindergartens and libraries and things like that. It doesn't seem to gel to me to have that influx of large numbers of people to the casino every night of the year. That is a genuine concern raised by a citizen of this State about the impact that a casino will have on the proposed residential section of the Docklands area. I note the honourable member for Melbourne is nodding his head in agreement. It seems fairly inconsistent to have all the noise and traffic pollution associated with a casino development being placed right on the doorstep of, or even right within, a residential precinct for up to 25 000 people as proposed by the government. The Minister for Major Projects might like to respond on how he sees a casino fitting in with the overall Docklands development. Genuine concerns have been expressed, not just by the opposition but by the citizens of Victoria, about what will be involved in the mix of residential, commercial and other uses of the area. One of the government's plans is for structures such as the casino to be built on the riverside adjacent to already existing structures such as the World Congress Centre and the World Trade Centre. Those plans could not be further from the desires of the opposition to open up the riverside and foreshore areas to the people of Victoria, as has been done in Sydney and other cities throughout the world. Nothing could be further from the opposition's goal than having the government building a glittery casino building - to help it prop up its revenue - next to the World Trade Centre, which would again deny the public access to the foreshore. But when we examine some of the comments made in the strategic options paper released by the government, it is not surprising to realise that the government has got it wrong. The philosophy of the project, it is explained in that paper, is that the Docklands will help the shift towards a post-industrial economy. What, I ask, does "post-industrial economy" mean? Does it mean that an area of land in Melbourne that used to be used to export goods and commodities to overseas countries and thereby assist the balance of payments problems of this nation will be sold off, its buildings demolished and used for some other purpose? Is a post-industrial economy merely an excuse to say that we can no longer manufacture in this State; that we can no longer produce goods at a decent cost to get them off our wharves and sold overseas in a competitive marketplace? Does a post-industrial economy admit to a failure to be able to manufacture and export and, therefore, have to rely on demolishing wharves for a tourist precinct? Is that indicative of what the Federal Treasurer refers to as a banana republic? That is the philosophy of the State government in its strategic options paper. The government says it will help Victoria shift towards a post-industrial economy. It argues that the Docklands will also compensate for the dearth of office space in this city. Again nothing could be further from the truth. Honourable members are well aware that currently Melbourne has 4.8 million square metres of office space, 50 per cent of which is in the central business district, or, as the government calls it, the central activities district. The government proposes that the Docklands project will provide up to 1.3 million DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1336 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

square metres of additional office space in excess of the six big office blocks now coming on stream. Currently there are many shiny, glitzy office blocks in Melbourne that are empty. They cannot get tenants. Yet the government is saying in its options paper that it will provide 1.3 million square metres of additional office space. When will it come on stream? What is the plan? Where will the tenants come from? Are we talking 20 years or 30 years down the track? Mr Cole - In 25 years time. Mr HONEYWOOD - The honourable member for Melbourne suggests it is a 25-year plan. If he is right, why did the government not consult with the public? Why has it pulled the rug out from under Victorians? Why did the government tell the public it had until the end of April to have input and then turn around and introduce this Bill in mid-March? If that is a 25-year plan, as the honourable member will have us believe, it is incumbent upon the Minister and the honourable member to explain to the House exactly why they have pulled the rug out from under the people of Melbourne in terms of public consultation. This is an important Bill. It is very rare for a generation to have the opportunity of embarking upon the sort of major inner urban renewal represented by the Docklands project. But let us get it right. Let us make sure that the mix of land usage, whether it be residential, commercial, tourist or whatever, is right. Let us make sure the site is clean and that it does not cost up to $80 million to clean up the pollution down there. Let this be a project of which we can all be proud, just like the London Docklands and Granville Island in Vancouver, Canada. It is important that we get it right. The opposition has reservations about the government's getting it right. It expresses concern about the government's philosophy, geared to its social justice program, which will ensure that there is a large component of public housing in the Docklands area. The government's philosophy is also tied into glitzy projects such as casinos, which may dominate the foreshore and deny access to the public. We have an opportunity here to ensure that the Docklands Authority operates on a sound basis. For that reason we should pay heed to the objections of residents. We should pay heed to objections put forward by the City of Melbourne, the Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia and the Committee for Melbourne to ensure that the mixture will be right. We must ensure that the authority will get its act together to ensure that on a comprehensive basis it operates in the interests of the people of Melbourne and not in the interests of Labor Party philosophy. It is important, therefore, that we make sure that we have a project of which we can be proud. For those reasons the opposition flags substantive amendments to the Bill in the Committee stage. Then, as the party coming into government, the opposition will have a fair say in ensuring that the mix is correct. Through our proposed amendments we will make sure that the government does not go down the road of glory; that it does not turn around and use this project as an election ploy or as the only piece of good news it has DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1337

on the horizon. We must ensure, therefore, that the people and taxpayers of the City of Melbourne and the State get value for their money. Mr HEFFERNAN {Ivanhoe} - I should like to add a few words to the debate on this important Bill to develop the Docklands and I compliment the leading opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Warrandyte, for the work he put into preparing his speech for today.

If ever there were an issue that would change the face of the State it is the development of the Docklands. Probably since Victoria was founded no single item of development has had such an impact on the people of Victoria. I hope the people in authority will ensure that the responsibility to be exercised in this area will be taken seriously and that the project will be developed properly. The Docklands will be Melbourne's answer to Circular Quay in Sydney. Melbourne has a significant and competitive location with the Docklands site. But I hope the government is not putting the cart before the horse in developing this area. Many questions remain unanswered. For example, what is the future role of the Port of Melbourne Authority in developing the area? Certain developments will always be held back while commercial interests exist on the waterways. It is important that the traffic movements be carefully monitored so that there is continual access to passive recreational facilities on the foreshore. The Minister for Major Projects must ensure that this position is closely examined. I hope the government has finally learnt its lesson. For six and a half years as a member of Parliament I have continually harped on the fact that the government must get out and leave the private sector to develop Victoria. Private development is important for this State to progress. I cannot fail to take this opportunity to say that for six and a half years the government has had its hands in the pockets of the private sector. It has tried to do all the things the private sector can do because it thought it could do them better. At long last the government recognises that if Victoria is to recover from today's economic climate the private sector must be at the forefront. The government is now playing its correct role in putting into place opportunities for the strong arm of the private sector to move in without government interference so that it can develop Victoria. It is extremely important that that should occur. The honourable member for Warrandyte referred to the establishment of the new Docklands Authority. I suggest it is a proper step for an independent authority to be established. It has taken some time for the government to recognise that the hand of government is responsible for continually holding back developers. That is why Victoria has not been successful in recent years. The government has finally admitted that local councils and government departments do nothing to expedite a developer's plans to spend money in this State. The Docklands Authority will bypass the heavy hand of government at long last. That is being done because of the frustration that has occurred with planning applications. I feel sorry for those people who are locked into the planning process because they are continually frustrated and held up. DOCKLANDSAUTHORITYB~L

1338 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 Apri11991

I have no doubt that certain organisations will have their noses out of joint. The honourable member for Melbourne knows that the Melbourne City Council will be alarmed by the fact that it will have no influence or power over the Docklands Authority. Consultation is important and perhaps the Melbourne City Council should have some input. The honourable member for Burwood interjects, "Only once or twice in 25 years". I am not sure about that, but I agree that the establishment of the authority is moving in the right direction. This is the first time I can remember as a member of Parliament that the government has got it right, and I urge the government not to rush the implementation of the legislation because it will have a significant impact on Melbourne. I urge the Attorney-General to get it right now before the opposition gains government in twelve months time, because this development has a great deal of potential and excitement for Victorian taxpayers not just for the immediate future but for the next ten or twenty years.

This land belongs to the people of Victoria. The honourable member for Warrandyte is right when he says there must be some return to the community. The taxpayers will pay all the infrastructure costs and they should get some benefit in ten or twenty years time. The development is on Crown land which belongs to the people and the government, on behalf of the people, has decided that this development should take place. It must be established along strict business lines so that the taxpayers receive a return on their investment in the years to come. The bureaucrats must be kept out of this development so that it can be successful.

Mr KENNETI (Burwood) - The Attorney-General, by interjection, said that some members of the opposition may wish to join the Labor Party, and that provokes the obvious question: which party of the Labor Party is he referring to? In the not-too-distant future, after the next election, when the Attorney-General is on the opposition benches, I trust that the comments he makes in relation to the legislation and the Docklands development will be consistent, because the passage of the legislation through both Houses of Parliament will be the easiest part of this development. It is easy to draft legislation, but it will be increasingly difficult to bring about the result we all want - a result that not only does credit to Parliament, but will work in the long-term interests of the State.

Victoria is fortunate that it has buildings such as the State Library and the University of Melbourne that were commissioned by people many years ago when the population was much smaller, but they developed these buildings so that they would meet the community's needs over the following lOO years. The same should apply to this development. This is not a 25-year project that starts now and finishes in 25 years time. I hope it has the capacity to stand the test of time, perhaps for the next lOO years.

When developing this project the designers must examine the architecture, the use of the waterways, the quality of the building materials and so on. Buildings such as Nauru House are suffering from cancers within the building material, and we would not want that to occur with this project. The last thing we want is for construction to rush ahead DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1339

and then have buildings fall into disrepair with their design being obsolete in 30 or 40 years. I have the impression that the legislation has been drafted in a rush so that it could be introduced this sessional period. I am not sure that sufficient consideration has been given to the issues outlined in the Bill. It is like buying a building from a plan: the legislation will be substantially amended over the next few years as the project develops and shortfalls become apparent. No-one should believe the legislation being debated today will be a standing piece of legislation. It gives life to the Docklands Authority but, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the drafting of the legislation is the easiest part of this project. It is essential that the land be vested in the authority. The members of the authority will have important responsibilities. I am not sure who the government proposes will be the chairman of the authority. Has that been decided yet? Mr Kennan - No. Mr KENNETT - The Attorney-General may have people in mind to appoint to the authority and he may be in a position to give an indication of who they are during the course of the debate. I stress that it is essential that whoever heads the authority be a leader of men and women, a person who has a track record of commitment and of bringing on stream similar developments and is a cleanskin regarding his or her previous experience. In other words, the government will run extraordinary risks if it appoints as chairman someone who has not involved himself or herself in this project. The developments in New South Wales occurred over a period and have been very successful. The Expo project under Llew Edwards in Brisbane was also successful, and considerable experience was drawn from the individuals involved in those projects. The person appointed as chairman of the authority should have at least ten years of service to give so that there is continuity. I make the same comments about the persons who will make up the authority. They must have the stature to deal with government and other authorities and be people who have the experience to get things done fairly quickly. If that does not occur the project will falter. The honourable member for Ivanhoe indicated that this project should be developed in the interests of Victoria and that it should be developed as quickly, efficiently and cost-efficiently as possible. He said that all possible obstacles to its development should be removed. It is for that reason that I am not concerned that the Melbourne City Council has been excluded from participating in the project. The council has enough on its plate regarding funding and meeting the demands of the area it services. I have argued for many years that the council should be reduced in size to the area covering the central business district of Melbourne and that the residential areas of the council be hived off to surrounding councils. Melbourne is the gateway to Victoria, and the Docklands will be part of that. Regretfully the Melbourne City Council does not have a good track record over many years of being able to undertake this type of work in the best interests of all concerned. It is right that DOCKLANDSAUTHORITYBaL

1340 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

there is a separate authority to develop the project. Earlier I asked the Minister to take this on board on the slim chance he may be returned in his seat after the next election. In the past I have noticed that once a political party changes from the opposition to government or from the government to the opposition there is often a substantial change in the attitude it takes with certain projects - I cite the Alcoa plant at Portland. The Labor Party when in opposition worked hard with trade unions to cause as much embarrassment as possible to the government of the day to stop that project going ahead. It said then if it were elected to government it would renegotiate legal contracts entered into by the government of the day with Alcoa and that brought about delays and increased the cost of the development. After the election when the roles are reversed in this place and if the Minister is fortunate or unfortunate enough to be returned I trust that the Labor Party will not fiddle with the project after its assurances and comments made on the introduction of the Bill because that will not only be detrimental to the State but it will also be detrimental in terms of cost and quality to the project. As the honourable member for Warrandyte foreshadowed amendments will be moved in the Upper House where the legislation will pass. Given that situation it must be recognised by the government that a bipartisan approach should be taken to this project both now and after the election. If the Labor Party in opposition were to take a different attitude it would be totally irresponsible. Unfortunately in the fifteen years I have been in Parliament too often I have seen changes of attitudes which have affected the quality and morale of those who work on the projects and ultimately have cost the people of Victoria dearly. One has only to look north to New South Wales and Queensland to understand that where there is goodwill and community involvement on a project results will be achieved quickly. I make two other points relating to the private sector. It is important for honourable members to realise that during the past decade the government interfered with private enterprise by trying to kick-start the economy, keeping its foot down hard on the accelerator and, in trying to pick winners, led to the deterioration of entrepreneurial activity in this State. Politicians - Liberal or Labor - have a reducing relevance to the real world for every year they spend in this place. Until politicians have the capacity to have a hands-on situation in the commercial area - whether on a farm, a commercial activity or perhaps at law - with the passage of every year they become more irrelevant in the marketplace. Mr Kennan - Or in textiles! Mr KENNEIT - Whatever you think is appropriate. Whatever the experience is it is invaluable. My concern is that the past ten years experimentation has been costly for the people of Victoria. Politicians are not the best at making commercial decisions. We are not the best ones to pick winners, to give support to some and make it hard for others DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1341

causing them to fail. Therefore this project will only succeed if government involvement is minimal. The legislation vests the land in the authority and the authority reports directly back to the Minister. Outside that the only involvement for the govemment should be the facilitation to cut through red tape when things are needed to be done in order that the authority with the private sector can bring about a positive result. That is the role of the authority.

To that end if the only test of the authority's success is the way in which it is funded there is no role in 1991, given the current priorities of the community, for the government to be investing the communities' money in this project.

The private sector must accept some responsibility and ultimately all the responsibility for the development. The land is the asset of the people of Victoria. It will be sold off under some arrangement and the income must be used appropriately in infrastructures such as roads. Currently land prices have never been lower but historically they go up and down. They fluctuate wildly; they will improve and the land around the waterways, which is worth a great deal of money should not be sold cheaply. Ultimately the revenue should be returned to the people of Victoria. It will not be good enough if the community does not profit from the development.

It is also necessary that there be some system of checking. I am not sure how that will be done but there should be a mechanism whereby a brake can be put on the potential expansion of the authority and the people who work within it. The authority should be small with vibrant qualified people working in it. In the past authorities and government agencies tended to create bureaucracies which grew quickly. If a community asset of land were sold off, too often the revenue was invested in people, marketing and so forth. There should be a check that says to the people running the authority that they do not have open slather to build up a bureaucracy, otherwise it would be better not to begin.

A relevant system can be put in place that independently audits the way in which the authority undertakes the project. It is important this is done from day one. Government money has already been spent. It is my money, it is your money, it is the community's money.

Right now the community has not got the money to invest. One has only to look at the Auditor-General's report to see the wastage that has drained the community dry of its capacity to produce money whether it be by small or large business.

The governmenfs first priority must be to encourage those who create wealth so more people can be employed, who will ultimately pay more taxes and charges, which will give the government the capacity of meet debt and to embark on projects such as this.

I ask the Minister in his response to articulate whether the government will provide for independent monitoring of the finances and staffing of the authority. In six, twelve or eighteen months I do not want to be part of a government that finds by the passage of DOCKLANDSAUTHORITYB~L

1342 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

the Bill it has given birth to a multi-headed snake. We do not want another huge bureaucracy.

As I said at the beginnin~ it is important that this project works and works well. It is a time of psychological recession when many people have no hope and have no confidence in the community. Therefore, it is an important project because it signals some sense of vision. It is not the only thing happening in the community that is good; many good things are happening but, unfortunately, we do not hear much about them. However, because this has the potential of being a good project, all honourable members must ensure that it works well. Its success will not be judged on a huge bureaucracy being necessary to make it work. The project needs to be lean and exciting and the public needs to be included as much as possible in this vision for the gateway to the State, the City of Melbourne.

I ask the Minister to respond to my query about personnel, and I trust they will be agreed upon only after discussion between all parties. We are entering into an election period, and decisions about a long-term project should not be taken by the government alone. I also ask the Minister to indicate what, if any, independent audits will be conducted to ensure that the authority to be created will not become another huge bureaucracy.

Mr COLE (Melbourne) - I support the Bill and seek to endorse many of the comments made by the three previous speakers. The honourable member for Burwood made some important points about how the Docklands Authority should proceed. I speak with some trepidation about the development of the Docklands. The notion of some fonn of development has been around for a long time and the area is within my electorate. I am concerned for the people on the periphery of the Docklands who, for many years, suffered badly from excessive traffic noise. They have seen residential accommodation taken over by office space to the detriment of the area and its communities.

I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Warrandyte suggest restricting how far the project can extend, and I believe the government should support any amendment put forward to that end. People in the area are concerned about ideas that were mooted about the project extending beyond the Adderley Street, Footscray Road and Dudley Street area. Some ideas were abhorrent to them and would have been disastrous, particularly the suggestion of boulevards in Curzon Street, a street in which I used to live. Those concerns are monumental to the people affected. For years people in the area have been working to establish traffic measures and the recent move of heavy traffic from Dudley Street to Peel Street has been of benefit. However, more work needs to be done.

One must draw a distinction between consultation about the Docklands Authority and consultation about what is actually put on the land. We must be cautious and ensure that all groups and organisations are fully informed and that the authority does not get out of control. At the same time, that approach must be balanced against getting the job done. It DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1343

is always the difficulty that, at some point, a decision must be made and some people will be upset while others will be happy. As someone who believes in social justice and consultation, I am concerned that we do not concede too readily to property developers simply for the sake of property development. We have already seen some of the disasters that have occurred during the past twenty years, and I venture to suggest some developments in the city took place simply for the sake of development. I am concerned about what has happened to the city and I hope in the future we will be more responsible about the way developments take place. The Bill establishes the Docklands Authority, and personnel of the authority should be decided on in consultation with the opposition parties to ensure that bipartisan support is achieved. If the land area is to be developed, it is crucial that as many people as possible support it. I shall reflect a little on what was proposed for the area with regard to Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. A successful bid would have had a large impact on the Docklands and the immediacy of the problem has been taken away by the fact that the bid was unsuccessful. In the current recessionary climate the chances of getting substantial development other than a casino are extremely limited. That point should be reflected upon, and it provides an opportunity for considering what can be done when the economy recovers. I always listen intently to the contributions of the honourable member for Ivanhoe because he makes his point about the importance of government staying out of these arrangements and leaving it to private enterprise. To a large extent that is true, and much of the work that must be done will rely on capital from the private sector. However, major infrastructure development must take place. From a conservation point of view I want to see the development in and around the Docklands area of a substantial freight terminal for rail freight. Unless more freight is carried by rail and the number of trucks on the roads is reduced, the problems of the roads cannot be solved and the noise and air pollution created cannot be reduced. At the end of the day the government must have a large input, even if it is only to underwrite the private sector investment in the area. It is essential that the project includes a large portion of residential accommodation. The urban sprawl has become far too costly; as a capital city Melbourne can do more to encourage people to live in inner urban areas. This is a favourite topic of mine and I speak about it constantly especially since, after the redistribution, my electorate is moving into Brunswick because so many people have moved from Melbourne. That has been beneficial in some respects, but, from a social point of view, it is not good. The number of people living in the inner city area needs to increase. The Docklands offers an opportunity of providing not only a lot of private accommodation but also public accommodation. Although it is fine to look to the private sector, many homeless people need public housing and they should be allowed to live in the inner city and have DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1344 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

access to already existing facilities, such as schools, public transport, kindergartens, hospitals and so on. There are lots of kindergartens in the inner city area.

Mr Kennett - Lots of babies!

Mr COLE - That is right, lots of babies, more kids in the inner city areas. Issues of inner suburban development will be crucial for the next 30 to 40 years and the time to plan for them is over the next four to five years. There has been some development of the inner city area; there is the Lynch's Bridge project and some development of public housing. There is already a substantial amount of public housing in the inner city area and the honourable member for Burwood would remember that from the time he was the Minister of Housing.

The important issue for me is that unless there is a very strong public housing sector it is hard to see how the people on low incomes are going to be accommodated in the inner city areas other than remaining homeless or using other methods of accommodation that are unacceptable. It is understandable that the Melbourne City Council objects to any diminution or lack of increase in its power.

The Melbourne City Council thinks there has been insufficient consultation about the Docklands Authority. Had I continued to be a Melbourne city councillor I would have been jumping up and down complaining about the lack of consultation. It seems that once you move up to Spring Street your approach to consultation modifies and you start to see that sometimes you have to get on with the job that has to be done.

If we look at what happened in the central business district (CBD), we find that the council did not have power over it and it has not had that power since the election of the government and since the council was reinstated. The result has been that development has taken place at an enormous rate. I do not see that that should be any different with the Docklands which, as I said previously, is a cause for concern. I think that the development took place ahead of the rate it should have and we are now suffering badly because of it. It has been bad from a planning point of view.

The Bill shows that there is a capacity to expand the powers of the Docklands Authority and the Melbourne City Council is concerned abOut that. I believe rightly, because the people the council represents will be affected by it, particularly around the West Melbourne area. There is no reason why the Docklands Authority could not delve further over to North Melbourne, Kensington and Flemington. These issues have become crucial for the council and for those reasons it has been opposed to the Docklands Authority.

With adequate consultation in the future and perhaps representation on the Docklands Authority by somebody from the Melbourne City Council- we might be able to appoint one of the Tories to it; that might solve one of the problems and appease the conservative forces on the issue of the council's involvement with the Docklands Authority. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1345

The issues relating to the Melbourne Gty Council and its objections can be addressed over time, particularly if it is made clear that it is not intended to give the Docklands Authority power over other areas. We will ensure that at all times the planning processes, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and any other appeal systems, are fully complied with and that there is no attempt to subvert those processes or to deny people a right of access to the legal system to object to any procedures they do not like - that is assuming the consultation process has been unsuccessful in convincing people that what is going on is appropriate. I conclude by saying that I am pleased to hear what people have said; it is an area I have lived in nearly all my life and I take great pride in it. I hope this area can be developed and that the City of Melbourne stays as the City of Melbourne and that I, being a resident of Flemington, do not get hived off to Essendon or some other council. The Gty of Melbourne has more to it than a few buildings in the city where people come to work, there is also a population. We should be going the opposite way and making it bigger and taking in a few other councils, maybe then we would have a strong regional government that would be very well represented and be able to perform much better and more effectively and perhaps things like the Docklands Authority would not be necessary and State governments would not be so necessary. The issue of how we approach the question of the Docklands is crucial to Victoria and I hope we can all work together to achieve a good result. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I offer support for the general thrust of the Bill but highlight a few concerns I have that go to the performance of other structures that have been put in place by previous governments and taken over by this government. I refer to organisations that have grown, like the Geelong Regional Commission. I note the remarks of previous speakers expressing concern about the prospective size of this new authority. I want to be very sure that the appointments that are to be made to the board and at officer level will be of the highest calibre. I agree with what the honourable member for Burwood said in his remarks about accountability; it will need to be very stringent and we do not want to see an organisation continue to grow like topsyand be a self-fulfilling organisation rather than addressing the real issues that are important in the development of this area. I am disappointed at the failure of the government to properly consult on this matter of vital importance to the State, and there can be no excuses for its failure in that regard. The interest I have in this area goes back to the time I spent as chief executive of the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the former Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, located in the World Trade Centre. Because of the nature of that organisation, which has a major interest in the import and export of products through and via the port, I am interested to see what evolves in that area. I support the notion of a restructuring of the entire area; it is a very valuable piece

77825/91-44 DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1346 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

of land. I do not know whether low-income housing ought to be part of it, but time will tell. I do not have a personal hang-up aboqt low-income housing but I do question whether that particular area will prove to be the appropriate place. There certainly needs to be a mixture of development and, as the hollOUl'able member for Melbourne said, if the City of Melbourne is to restructure itself and get some l,leart back into it a key feature has to be the people who live, breathe and work in the city, not just those who commute into the city to work, but those who are part of its ongoing fabric. I support that.

I hope the facilities and structures that will become part of the development of this area as a consequence of the Docklands Authority are structures that stand the test of time. I think back to what I regard as a clip-on clip-off building, the World Trade Centre, which was knocked up in a fairly short period. The structure itself is of a questionable nature when compared with other facilities in the community that have stood the test of time.

I hope there are no quick monuments in the Dockland~ dedicated to anyone or any institution but, rather, if there are to be major facilitiespf some nature, that they are of long-term benefit to the community. I n~te that clau~ 8 ofthe Bill,s.ays:

The Authority is to carry out its functions, powers and

While the opposition has no general coneem abou~ ~h~ objects of the BUI, I refer to the provision in clause 9(2) that the authority will operate within government policy. As it is inevitable that there will be a change of government and therefore pOlicies could change, the propriety of consultation between the government and the opposition parties must be maintained. It must be ensured that the people appointed to the authority are of quality and acceptable to both parties so that some commonality can be achieved in the future policy for and development of that area. Hon~rable members on this side of the House will watch, both while in opposition and in government, what goes on in the work of the authority. The attempt to fast-track the activities in the Docklands area is commendable but the authority must not rush headlong into something without the necessary preplanning features having been attended to, as its work will be most important.

I refer to an area of concern; that is, the control, of tlSset sales that will take place as part of the redevelopment process. It is vital that, firStlYi the asset sales are undertaken in the public interest, to the advantage of the redeve~opment work undertaken by the authority and, secondly, that the funds generated are used very wisely. I note that clause 39 provides for the Auditor-General to be involved in the audit procedures. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BaL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1347

I express a further concern about the proposed advisory committees. Oauses 42 and 43 provide the opportunity for setting up advisory committees to advise the responsible Minister. Oause 43 provides also that: A member of an advisory committee is not to be taken to hold an office or place of profit under theCrown. .. As an honourable member who came to this House in 1976 and, along with others, had to have a validation Bill to allow me to undertake my duties, I understand the sensitivity about the question of holding an office of profit. On a quick reading, the Bill does not make it clear whether money is to be paid to people who are members of any advisory committee. I wonder what is the difference between committees to be set up under the proposed authority and those set up to assist the government in Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games, which had no validating process. One wonders whether clauses 42 and 43 are Barry Rowe or Evan Walker-type clauses - and I do not wish to be critical of Mr Walker - so I seek some explanation from the Attorney-General as to why it was considered necessary to include these provisions. The Bill contains significant reference to regulations. I point out that the normal procedure in respect of regulations is that legislation contains disallowance provisions. The Bill contains extensive prOvisions relating to regulations; they go to by-laws and run to quite a number of pages. I should have thought it appropriate for the government to include some provision for disallowance of regulations. Oause 56 makes provision for the disclosure and recording of pecuniary interests. It does not identify the nature of the register although sufficient precedent exists for establishing a register of pecuniary interests, as honourable members are aware, and as is known also to members of local government. Here is an example of the hasty nature of the preparation of the proposed legislation. With those reservations and others mentioned by the honourable member for Warrandyte, I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - The National Party supports a bipartisan approach to the establishment of the Docklands Authority. While the National Party does not represent the Docklands area in Parliament, and therefore does not have the same relationship with the area as do members of the Labor and Liberal parties, we are members of the coalition and therefore prepared to accept the need for a bipartisan approach to many of the Iruljor developments that take place in Melbourne. Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria and it is acknowledged that consideration and bipartisan support must be given to a number of projects. The government of the day must be supported to ensure that developments are undertaken to give the aty of Melbourne a high profile, not only on the national scene but also on the world stage. In giving bipartisan support to the development of Melbourne, the National Party would like to think that where necessary a bipartisan approach will be taken to matters relating to country areas. As the Premier is present, I mention the issue of the clearing of native DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1348 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

vegetation. Yesterday it was suggested that a bipartisan approach should be taken to the matter, just as the Docklands Authority Bill is being dealt with on.a bipartisan basis. I understand some 300 hectares of land will be developed and will be vested in the authority. The honourable member for Burwood referred to the importance of the proposed authority and I echo those sentiments. The authority will be comprised of between five and nine people who will have to be of high calibre and credibility as they will play a significant role in the planning processes over the next twelve months. If the people who comprise the authority have the right vision for the future and have the necessary negotiating skills to approach the government - and ultimately the coalition when it comes to government - it can only be a plus and a significant factor in developing Melbourne and continuing to encourage its growth as a world-class city. The National Party happily supports that. Other developments in other cities in Australia, such as the Darling Harbour development in Sydney, have made important contributions to the country. It is essential that they continue and therefore the National Party supports the Bill. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank honourable members for their support of the Bill and for their comments. As the honourable member for Warrandyte said, the land proposed to be developed is extraordinarily well placed for the government. I am delighted that members of the opposition share the vision of the government about the proposal and I am particularly delighted. that the opposition, as expressed by the honourable member for Warrandyte, shares the government's vision for public access to the waterfront and the public open space proposals put forward. The honourable member for Warrandyte raised also the question of consultation. A certain amount of confusion exists about that. In fact two consultation procedures are in place. One is through the Docklands consultation steering group which is considering some 31 square kilometres of land, a huge area going almost right down to Footscray. The Bill does not deal with that vast area and does not pre-empt anything that might be put forward in respect of that area or a smaller area about the precise nature of the development. All the Bill will do is establish a statutory authority that relates, initially, to the land that is in Schedule 1, which refers to a relatively small portion of the total land that may ultimately be involved. The Bill will do no more than set up an authority, which will be a planning authority bound by the Planning and Environment Act. Sitting suspended 1.1 p.m. until 2.2 p.m.. Mr KENNAN - Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the issues raised by the honourable member for Warrandyte. I am delighted that the opposition hopes, as does the government, that the Bill will lead to major urban renewal. As members of the opposition have said, we are fortunate to be of a generation that has the opportunity of partaking in a vision that will radically affect the future of Melbourne; and the planning opportunity is the first of its type to occur since the establishment of Melbourne as a city. DOCKLANDSAUTHORITYBaL

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1349

The honourable member for Warrandyte raised various issues about consultation, and consultation about all of the 21 square kilometres will continue. Firstly, the Docklands Authority Bill does not dictate in any way the sort of development to take place on any part of the Docklands; and secondly, the Bill deals with only a very small part of the Docklands as set out in Schedule 1. The scheme of the Bill is to potentially confer planning powers on the Docklands Authority; but that planning scheme, like any other, must be approved by the Minister. The Bill does not in any way pre-empt the normal statutory planning processes. Any planning scheme that is prepared for the area will be subject to those planning processes, which are the most publicly consultative of any similar jurisdiction in Australia. To speak plainly, those who resist change often call for delay; and however detailed the consultation process has been, there will always be those who seek more consultation. The truth of the matter is that the draft discussion paper published in December 1990 said comment on the proposed Bill was invited by 22 March and that by April the government would decide whether to introduce a Docklands Authority Bill. It is now 17 April and, as explained in the discussion paper, the time for discussion expired a month ago. It is not every Bill that has a detailed discussion paper published about it for comment months in advance of its introduction. The work done by the Docklands consultation steering group, which sought public input into the shape of the development, is much broader in scope because it relates to all of the 21 square kilometres of the development. Once the authority is established it will have available the advice and the wisdom gained from the consultation process. But the establishment of the authority will not in itself cut across the consultation. There seems to have been some confusion about that, although in some quarters there has been a deliberate obfuscation of the issues involved. I think the old railway building that was referred to is now in private hands. There is no power in the authority for such a building to be affected, unless the Minister gives it; and any adjacent planning schemes will be matters for normal statutory processes. Members of the opposition asked questions about the cost of the infrastructure, which is an important issue. It is intended that the Docklands Authority will be able to develop government land on a stage-by-stage basis - which is another matter I was asked about - but such development will at least substantially pay for the cost of the infrastructure. There is nothing in the Bill that will put a drain on the public purse. It enables staged and appropriate development to occur over the long term. It will be at least a 25-year project, as honourable members have said, and the cost of any infrastructure the government might provide could be recouped, as the honourable member for Burwood suggested, from the sale of land and so on. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mr KENNAN - No doubt in 25 years time the land may have been under the control of governments of different colours. DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

1350 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

I thank the opposition for its expression of bipartisan support for the Bill. I particularly thank the honourable members for Ivanhoe, Burwood and Hawthorn for the way their speeches rose above the point-scoring level often indulged in by the opposition and sought a bipartisan, sensible approach to the matter in the public interest.

I put on the record my appreciation of the contribution made not only by those three honourable members but also by the honourable member for Melbourne, who brought to the debate the perspectives of a local member and a former member of the Melbourne City Council. As he said, one's views can change according to which tier of government one is serving in. He applied the State's interest not only to the area he represents but to areas surrounding it, which are contained in Schedule 1.

The honourable member for Burwood asked who would be on the authority. The government is happy to consult with the opposition parties, as the Committee for Melbourne has suggested, on the appointment of a chairperson and a chief executive of the Docklands Authority. I do not know whether we will reach agreement but we are happy to have consultation. It is important that the principles that have been put forward by opposition members have a bipartisan approach and I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the National Party for his constructive contribution.

I hope we have an authority with personnel that are not a matter of any party political controversy. We shall appoint individuals that we hope meet those criteria. I take up the _comments made by opposition members that there is no mileage in the public interest for party point scoring in relation to a Bill of such major importance as this one.

The honourable member for Burwood also asked about the monitoring and accountability of the authority, not so much because of government interference because I think honourable members opposite have said there is much to be said for a predominantly effective private sector represented board being able to get on with the job free from day-t

That is not to say the honourable member for Burwood is in any way detracting from the authority but I direct the attention of the House to clause 38 on annual reporting and clause 39 on audit and the Auditor-General which I think provide full accountability, at least on an annual basis, to the Minister and to Parliament. Clause 57 provides for a review by the Public Bodies Review Committee on 1 July 1997. The issues that were legitimately raised by the honourable member for Burwood are addressed in that way.

The opposition said its concerns were such that it wanted to introduce amendments. I understand one amendment would set an outer boundary to take up the concern of residents. The honourable member for Melbourne said that from his viewpoint that would be welcomed and I think that is the government's position. I assume in saying that the opposition is not suggesting the current Schedule 1 area is too big but rather that DOCKLANDSAUTHORITYB~L

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1351

there should be some limitation and if it were to be enlarged beyond that it would require a legislative amendment rather than the Governor in Council process in this Bill.

If that is the position of the opposition it is not an issue with which the government would have any difficulty because, as we have said repeatedly, we regard the area in Schedule 1 as taking some years to develop and areas outside that, unless there is some surprise, would not be likely to be developed in the near future in any event.

The other amendment foreshadowed by the opposition is one on which I do not have full details but it may be that we do not have any problem with that either.

The honourable member for Hawthorn raised issues about advisory committees in clause 43 which states that an advisory committee is not to have an office of profit under the Crown in a way that would prevent a member of Parliament sitting on it. As that is an advisory committee and not the authority, I should have thought that was proper and I take it from something the honourable member for Warrandyte said that the opposition regards the advisory committees as being the place for local government representation.

In conclusion, I thank opposition members for their constructive and bipartisan approach to this Bill and the issues of concern that have been outlined by them. We shall certainly try to reach agreement with them so that bipartisan support continues. This is one of the most fundamentally important Bills that has been passed through Parliament for many years. It is desirable for it to be politically bipartisan.

The honourable member for Burwood suggested that political parties sometimes change their position on issues, especially development issues, depending on whether they are in government or in opposition. Without going over the history that he recounted of the 1970s and 1980s I hope political parties over the next 25 years, or the life of this development, will retain a bipartisan approach. The development of the Docklands and the inner city regeneration is something I have been keenly interested in and I assure honourable members opposite that my party will continue its bipartisan support. I am encouraged by the comments of the opposition in that regard and I look forward to seeing its amendments. I believe those amendments can be accommodated without holding up the passage of the Bill. As the honourable member for Hawthorn so appropriately said: we wish the Bill a speedy passage.

The SPEAKER - Order! In the course of debate on the Bill I have had cause to examine the Bill and I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. As there are fewer than 45 members in the Chamber, I ask the Oerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Required number of members having assembled in Chamber:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1352 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION Debate resumed from 16 April; motion of Ms KIRNER (Premier): That this House endorses the application of Planning Amendment SS - State Section Planning Schemes to protect native vegetation in Victoria. and Mr Brown's amendment That all the words after ''House'' be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "supports the protection of native vegetation in Victoria by a legislative system which recognises freehold land ownership, regional diversity and community cooperation in its application" . Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Prior to the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting last night, I was speaking in support of the motion and expressed concern about the position taken by the honourable member for Polwarth, who had told the House that in the Liberal Party room no opposition was expressed to the course of action the opposition proposed to undertake; that is, that there was no support for these controls. That was a great disappointment to me. I also take up another point raised by the honourable member for Polwarth and others from the opposition side of the House suggesting that these controls amount to farmer bashing. Just as the 100 kilometre speed limit and the .05 blood alcohol limit do not amount to motorist bashing, but are necessary controls in the interests of both motorists and the public, so the controls set out in Planning Amendment 55 are necessary for the protection of both farmers and the land itself, in the public interest. This is an historic decision at both a national and an intemationallevel. As we approach the year 2000 we are moving away from colonial exploitation of land and onto a path of ecologically sustainable development. That has to occur if we are to protect our environment. Victoria and South Australia have taken the lead in implementing these measures, displaying their real commitment to land conservation in the broadest sense. It is timely that other States should also move rapidly towards that point and adopt similar vegetation protection measures.

It will be on the opposition's head if these clearing controls do not stay in effect and substantial areas of our forests or bushland are lost as a result of panic or reckless clearing. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1353

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-I oppose the proposition put to the House by the Premier and support the amendment moved on behalf of the opposition. A great deal of misinformation and dangerous argument is being put forward by honourable members on the government side of the House concerning the role of native vegetation and, in particular, any influence it may have on the greenhouse effect At an earlier stage of the debate we heard the Minister for Conservation and Environment speaking with almost missionary zeal of retaining native vegetation if we are to save the world from the problems of warming from the so-called greenhouse effect. There is a growing body of opinion that the variations in the temperature of the planet which are being experienced at the present time are the normal fluctuations that occur periodically in the earth's atmosphere and that there may not be any such thing as the phenomenon known as the "greenhouse effect". It would be foolish for anybody debating this question to rely on that particular point of view. Nevertheless, it is important that we understand it is not a proven reality at this stage and I deplore the fear that has been generated among younger people that in their lifetime they will be faced with disastrous consequences. More particularly it is outrageous to suggest that the only solution is to stop farmers clearing the native vegetation on their properties. This theory of the role of native vegetation is based on the scientific fact that all vegetation uses carbon dioxide out of the abnosphere. It stores the carbon and releases the oxygen back into the atmosphere. The fact is the carbon the plant stores has to be stored somewhere and there has to be evidence of where that carbon is. We know the oxygen goes into the atmosphere. The carbon is stored in the tissue of the plant material itself. The question that should be asked of the government is: where is the carbon stored by the forests of the continent of Australia which are over 40 000 years old? If the native forests are so important for storing all this carbon, where is it? It cannot just disappear. One of the first laws of physics is that matter cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed. It does not just disappear. It is still there somewhere. The only place it can possibly be is within the tissue of the plants which are growing. What happens in our native forests? Obviously, as the trees grow they store carbon in their trunks and leaves. A certain amount of leaves, twigs, bark and branches falls to the ground and, theoretically, in the minds of many people, this should eventually be broken down to become humus in the soil. This would build up the level of carbon which is returned to the soil and adds to the fertility of the soil. We all should know that the soils of our native forests are, in the main, notoriously infertile. That is not where the carbon is going. Of course, it lies on the forest floor, because of the arid condition of most of the Australian continent, and does not rot away and build up the fertility of the soil. It is only partly broken down and it builds up from year to year until there is a bushfire. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1354 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

What happens to it then? It is disbursed back into the atmosphere in the fonn of carbon dioxide. It is totally illogical to suggest that our native forests store large quantities of carbon because they do that only when they are growing. Indeed, that argument sustains the point of view I have expressed time and again in this House. The most effective way of dealing with the greenhouse effect, if we need to do it by the use of native vegetation, is to keep as many young, vigorously growing forests as possible. Instead, the government says it has to lock up forests. They are old growth; trees that are not growing; trees that are breaking down; trees that are contributing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and not using it up. That is how illogical that argument is. H we are going to be logical about this we have to analyse the effect of the use of greenhouse gases by alternative methods, to which land cleared of native vegetation is put. The crops and pastures which replace the native vegetation also use carbon dioxide in their growth. Mr Maclellan - And provide oxygen! Mr EVANS - Indeed. It is exactly the same process; it is just different plants using these gases in the course of their growth. I believe there are figures to establish that a vigorously growing maize crop fixes more carbon dioxide per hectare than a vigorously growing native forest. I suggest that pastures and crops are contributing to the use of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The net effect of using land for the growth of crops and pastures is that a great amount of the material which is produced does not fall to the ground and rot away or get burnt. In fact, it is reasonable to argue that in the vast area of the Mallee where the land was covered by Mallee scrub - which in the main consisted of mature trees not growing or adding any wood of any great consequence - not as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere was used as was used by the expanse of wheat crops which are growing in the Mallee. The product of the wheat crop - the grain - contains tremendous volumes of carbon which is fixed very firmly until such time as it is used. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that the main problem with the greenhouse effect is that we are digging up trees - which millions of years ago nature buried and converted into coal that is now being burned - and putting back into the atmosphere carbon that was fixed by nature millions of years ago. On that basis it makes more logic to say cutting down forests, turning them into paper and burying them in the ground after use is doing something about addressing, at least theoretically, the imbalance we are creating by digging up the fossil fuels on which the big cities of modem society depend. Let us talk commonsense and logic instead of that airy-fairy nonsense about the role of native forests so far as the greenhouse effect is concerned. I suggest that the Minister for Conservation and Environment and the Premier have tried to convince this Parliament PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1355

and the people that the world's salvation lies in preventing Victorian farmers from clearing further native vegetation on their property. That is the level of this argument. I suggest that if all the native forests on private land in Victoria were wiped off the map tomorrow it would not make a jot of difference to the influence of the greenhouse effect. It would be the equivalent of my giving the Premier a dollar to help payoff the debt of this State. That is the degree of influence this legislation would have on the greenhouse effect and the control of greenhouse gases. So, the greenhouse argument should be dead and buried because it is completely fallacious. It does not require any scientific knowledge; it is just hard-nosed logic that the effect on the greenhouse effect of clearing native vegetation on private land in Victoria will be absolutely zero. Australia cannot solve that problem. It is not a problem of rural areas, it is a problem of the cities. The danger of the government's argument is that it is diverting the attention of city people away from the real problem. They will salve their consciences by saying, ''Look, we are doing something about the greenhouse effect; we have stopped the farmers clearing native vegetation off their land" and they will continue living in overheated buildings in winter and overcooled buildings in summer, and continue going to work in buildings where there are no windows to allow natural ventilation and which use energy to pump air around them. They travel in traffic where cars sit idling at traffic lights, pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but they do not worry about that. Mr Maclellan interjected.

Mr EVANS - Yes, as the honourable member for Berwick says, then they cremate themselves when they die!

If the government introduced legislation compelling buildings to be kept 2 degrees warmer in summer and 2 degrees cooler in winter, it would do far more for the greenhouse effect than this legislation. The argument about the greenhouse effect is specious; it does not stand up to commonsense analysis.

The next question is whether clearing of native vegetation has anything to do with the issue of salinity and land degradation. The very best farms in Victoria today were cleared at some time in history. There is not a farm, no matter how well run it is and how picturesque it is, that has not been cleared of native vegetation at some time in the past. It is ridiculous to argue that a farm that currently has native vegetation can never be as well as run, as well managed or as effectively farmed as is the best farm in Victoria at present.

There is an argument that, in some instances, the clearing of native vegetation in fairly restricted areas has been a contributing factor to salinity. The clearing of land in East Gippsland has nothing to do with the major salinity problem occurring in northern Victoria. It cannot possibly have any effect on it, and that is one of the reasons that we use as an argument to say that control of native vegetation should be exercised on a regional or more localised basis than what is proposed under Planning Amendment SS, because there are wide-ranging differences in the types of native vegetation and topography of the countryside, and different rules are needed in different places. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1356 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

There is no doubt it is important in certain parts of the State that efforts be undertaken to re-establish vegetation, but it does not necessarily need to be native vegetation. Most types of vegetation will be beneficial in those circumstances, but when looked at purely and simply from the point of view of overcoming the difficulties of salinity, it is not specifically native vegetation that will solve the problem. We do not accept that the control of native vegetation is vital to overcoming the salinity problems, even in those specific areas. I now come to the issue of remnant vegetation. A constituent of mine whose property is completely surrounded by public land and by forests is finding it hard to accept that the bit of native vegetation he has left on his property is remnant vegetation. He has to go 20 or 30 miles in another direction before he would reach another area where there is cleared property. It is absurd to argue that the native vegetation on his property is remnant vegetation. Obviously there are small pockets of land in the State where there is remnant vegetation, and we believe it is appropriate that people should be encouraged not only to retain it but also to expand it. The essential, operative word is that they should be "encouraged" to do so, because there is not a shadow of doubt that the retention of native vegetation through the provisions imposed by the government in this amendment will cost many people considerable sums of money. It is in the community interest, and surely the community should pay for it. It should not expect the poor unfortunate farmer who happens to be in the process of developing his land suddenly to be told that he can no longer continue clearing all the native vegetation from his land in order to establish a viable farm.

Many farmers have been working for many long years to establish viable farms and are doing so piece by piece. In some cases a series of generations has been gradually clearing the property. It is outrageous for the government to say it is in the community interest and that those people should pay - and they certainly are paying now. I shall quote a fax that I received not long ago on this matter. It relates particularly to how this proposal has been put into effect. It is a pity that nobody on the government side seems interested enough to listen to this quote. The fax is from the Bishop of Gippsland, the Right Reverend Colin Sheumack, dated 8 April 1991 and headed "Proposed amendments to State Planning Regulations on the Native Vegetation Clearing Controls Amendment SS":

Over the past year this matter has been of urgent concern in the far east of Gippsland. The people being affected, the small family farmers of East Gippsland, have not been informed of the regulations being brought into force by the government. The Minister said ample copies of the government's regulations in this area were available at the Conservation and Environment Office in Bairnsdale - one copy was provided and that has been taken by one person. The people whose lives are to be affected are not being informed and cannot obtain written information I made a submission on this matter in writing and by personal appearance. I have not received a copy of the government's regulation as promised. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1357

The government is trying to govern by secrecy and is losing the confidence of the people of this State. I have heard by report that the regulations insist that animals being moved are not allowed to travel on the sides of the roads - but must travel in the middle of the road to protect vegetation growing on the sides. The danger this will cause on our highways and roads is too horrific to contemplate. I have heard by report that trees left on farms for the protection of animals have to be fenced to avoid the reason for their existence on farms. I have heard that a fw1her proposal in the regulations would require that each farmer prepare and implement a farm management program in relation to native vegetation controls. I believe this would be an unreasonable cost burden on the farmers throughout East Gippsland. To govern this State without informing people of how the government is intruding on their lives is a denial of democratic government. I support completely a balanced environmental control of this State. This can only be brought about with the cooperation of farmers rather than the forceful approach currently being employed. I call upon the Victorian Parliament to correct the injustices in the regulations. For the Premier's edification that was a fax from the Bishop of Gippsland who has taken a great interest in this matter since it was directed to his attention by parishioners and others throughout the East Gippsland area. Indeed, the Bishop of Gippsland appeared in the County Court in Baimsdale on 17 December as a character witness for one John Mavros, who achieved a certain amount of notoriety when he became so frustrated with the effect of these regulations and more particularly with his total inability to gain a response from the government that he took to a government car with a bulldozer and turned it over. While not for a moment condoning his actions, I would have to say I fully understand why he did just that. I have a copy of the transcript of that hearing. The letter is fairly brief and I will read it because it explains his situation. I point out that this was evidence given in a court. The letter is quoted: Dear Minister, on January 31st 1989 , my application to register a sawmill was approved by your department. It was clearly understood at the time that I would be using timber from the surrounding private property. My wife and I have invested $200 000 in the mill for plant and machinery as a result of approval being given by your government for this mill. The shock ban of clearing of native timber came only months after the permit was given. I have no chance of operating the mill under these conditions. I might as well be in gaol and lose all.! have worked hard for over many years so I intend to defy your ban and start working again on Wednesday, March 21 at Buchan. You are invited to come up here on that day and arrest me for trying to make a living. That letter was sent to several Ministers and of course it was treated as all his previous requests for information on his rights have been treated - with complete disdain. He received no reply, no response and no acknowledgment from the government on the fact that its native clearance regulations had wiped him out completely. It is also stated in this evidence that Mavros's accountants indicated that his venture could be expected to have a turnover of something in the region of $600 000 per annum. He was employing seven men and yet all that was totally forgotten and ignored. He PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1358 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

received no response whatsoever from the government and it is interesting to note that in his judgment Judge O'Shea said this: I was informed by the learned prosecutor that the letter was, in fact, received, and I was told by counsel for the accused that its receipt was not even acknowledged, nor was any reply ever received. If that is correct it reflects no credit on that Minister or that department. That is fairly trenchant criticism coming from a judge in this State and yet the government tries to tell us that this is in the interests of the whole of the community. He tries to tell us that it is representing all sorts of people.

John Mavros is a migrant from Greece who came out here and started from nothing, managed to get a bit of capital together, invested the whole lot in this venture, and the government wiped him out completely. I did not notice anyone from the Ministry dealing with ethnic affairs rising to his assistance either. It is a shocking condemnation of what the government has done in this instance and it is an example of the opinion expressed by legal counsel that the legislation is "constitutionally obnoxious." That is the description used.

It flies in the face of all that is written in our statute-book with regard to subordinate legislation because this is, in effect, subordinate legislation. It is not legislation effected by Parliament; and in this case regulation-making powers have been used to make a substantial change to the laws of this State.

The right to a freehold-title to land is one of the fundamental planks on which our free enterprise system in this State has been built. Thousands of migrants came out to this country because of the attraction of a freehold title to land.

Immediately after the second world war when soldier settlement was extended throughout this country, Victoria had by far the largest number of applicants because it offered a freehold title. It is as much part of the social life of this country and the development of the country as our Parliamentary system itself. Indeed, Parliament was not very old before it introduced the legislation to enable freehold titles to be granted to the citizens of this State to encourage the development, the progress, the prosperity which made this State great a few years ago, the prosperity which has been completely diSSipated by the government over the past seven or eight years.

The tragedy is that the government is scaring the daylights out of young people about the terrible consequences of the greenhouse effect and it is trying to tell the community and these young people that the only salvation is through the farmers. It is trying to tell the few farmers that are left with native vegetation in this State that they are the only people who can save the planet from the terrors of the greenhouse effect. What rubbish!

It is in the city that the greenhouse effect is created. It is in the city that there is smog and where all the inefficiencies are. You will not solve the problems of the greenhouse effect out in the country and it is about time the government faced up to that reality and did something that would be electorally unpopular to the people who support the -PROTEctioN;OF NA11VE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 199 i ASSEMBLY 1359

government. Leave the people in the bush alone. They are not contributing to the greenhouse effect. Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - I support Planning Amendment SS because, as the last speaker said, it is important and it does affect.people in the city and particularly the people in the electorate I represent which is developing quickly. Only three years ago the last wheat grower moved out of the area, so to a large extent it was a rural electorate until recently, but I have seen what urban growth has done, particularly in the Keilor area with the basalt plains which grew many native species. These are slowly disappearing even along the railway tracks through burning and slashing rather than caring for them, and also because in the surrounding areas the land has been grazed, many native species have not survived. However, the vegetation has survived on Commonwealth land that has been set aside and on railwayeasements, and in particular on the steep slopes of creeks and gullies that crisscross Keilor. It is not simply an issue for country Victorians but concerns those in the urban areas. We must have plans and permits for further development and any removal of our native flora. The honourable member for Gippsland East made a fuss about migrants. Some of my friends may have said, 'They must be weeds. Wtl can cut them down and extend the car park or build a football ground" or whatever. However, today when buying any native bushland - for example, to establish an ethnic club - those same people are now aware of the various species of flowers which have splendid different colours in spring. In Keilor you can walk through grassland.s and see species like the austral bluebell, the button winkel wort, the plains billy button, the sunshine daisy or native orchids. Honourable members must remember the native flowers in Europe and in South Australia. I am concerned about the kangaroo grass and other species in Keilor. Many areas in my electorate must be preserved when development takes place. Honourable members may remember the effort made by a former member of this House, the late Pauline Toner, who stopped a planhed subdivision beCause of the presence of a precious butterfly in her area. If you remove the vegetation that is part of the ecosystem you also remove the natural flora and fauna from that area. They must work together. It is vitally important that the opposition, while opposing this motion, must take into consideration that the regulation is not an attack on the private landholders.-There are many responsible landholders and farmers who have learnt how to treat the n~ve bush, and now care for it. The usual mentality has been, "There is less inCome this year so I will put more acreage under crop or graze more cows and hope they will earn more money". It does not work that way. Recently a friend from the wheat country in Western Australia visited me. He is involved with the salinity problem there. We visited the Mallee area and he pointed out how problems could have been prevented had vegetation been left in place rather than being removed from certain properties. He particularly referred to the gullies and slopes, and the necessary effort to keep water on the high ground instead of running into PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1360 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

the gullies, thereby disrupting the root systems of vegetation. Without vegetation the water cannot seep into the high ground but flows into the valleys and that is when salinity problems occur. The subject does not concern only the irrigation system in Victoria because the salinity problem occurs in many areas. I was amazed while driving the car along several freeways to hear my friend say, "Those trees look sick for this-and-that reason". Basically he pointed out that the land had been cleared and worked incorrectly. That had an effect on the native flora; it may have been used as protection for sheep and the vegetation was dying. The House should appreciate the necessary learning curve associated with what is being sought by this regulation and the benefits that will flow to Victorians, including the farming community, and those who have freehold land. Society in general will benefit.

It reminds me of the growth factor problem faced in every country town. Farmers may say, ''We cannot afford to buy more land or expand and have our sons go on the land because it is too expensive. We have accountants and city businessmen buying the land for hobby farms. They do not know what they are doing with it". Those people need to be educated.

These days a large number of people like to buy undisturbed bushland, perhaps where no subdivision has occurred and the land has not been cleared. They may decide they want to clear it and become farmers. They may plant fruit-bearing trees and, for example, enter the nut-growing industry, but that may not be suitable for the area.

The opposition argument about championing people who have farmed land for generations has no foundation. Most farmers have done a good job and have passed on their experience and knowledge about how to treat the land to the younger generations.

Now people with money want to buy hobby farms; then you have the chainsaws and the bulldozers making roads through the property and disturbing the natural bush. That may be freehold land that is able to be sold and transferred. The regulation will ensure a protection and is aimed at education. When I was a young boy in Keilor the flowers looked very pretty. We often went for a walk with other schoolchildren and saw the vegetation. Now those native flowers are not there because housing development has been allowed to encroach. The escarpments and valleys were once inaccessible but as land values increased the developers thought, ''Now it is economic we will build on the slopes, and carve into the slopes and the valleys". That has endangered the vegetation because of the introduction of new flowers, weeds, and quite often grasses that should not be allowed to contaminate natural vegetation.

I have seen this particularly at Taylors Creek where the back fences abut the creek. The residents obviously think, ''What about some kangaroo grass and buffalo grass? We will blend them", but after a year or two that takes over and chokes the native grasses. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1361

Last night I mentioned how fifteen huge trees had been cut down on the old Calder Highway to allow access to an estate. It is not correct for National Party members and other honourable members representing country areas to maintain they are the only ones caring for the country areas. Victorians need to accept responsibility and assist those who are not aware of vegetation, and who do not appreciate the need for conservation. We must have sustained growth and development because we cannot replant vegetation and have it re-establish as quickly as modern machinery destroys it. When our forefathers went out with the axe and the bullock carts they could not remove as much vegetation and damage the environment as much as can be done today. Over the past seven or eight years that Labor has been in government in Victoria it has introduced measures like the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill, but the rapid destruction is continuing.

One of the points I made earlier is that the farming mentality is still the same in principle. As the income decreases, whether it be through a decline in milk, meat or wheat prices, the attitude seems to be that there is a need to expand in order to gain a higher return. However, that really does not work. I believe the good farmers learn how to get the maximum return from production on the property they have. Flooding the market with milk, wheat or other products will not ensure that a reasonable price is maintained; like everything else, if there is too much supply, the prices come down and the return is not as high as one would expect.

Mr Evans interjected.

Mr SEITZ - I am just expanding on the fact that on many occasions there is no need to clear bushland for farming purposes but that, more particularly, before land clearing takes place, the proposal should be examined and some professional advice sought on how the existing farming property, the adjoining lands and the flora and fauna in the area, which are of value to the society and the community that benefit from them, will be affected.

It is of great concern to me that there is not total support for Planning Amendment SS on both sides of the House. This is a vitally important issue and should transcend party political interest. The National Party should allow its coalition partner, the liberal Party, to support this planning amendment rather than compelling it to block it It is a planning amendment that is vital to future generations.

Gone are the days when, generation after generation, families were able to live on the farm. From the information and advice available to me I understand that about 65 per cent of people from farming communities leave the farm to live in the town or in the city anyway. Therefore, not all the families are living in the country on the farm; so the farming population is reduced.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of those people who live on the farm - for the benefit of their children and grandchildren who will no doubt live in the cities and towns - to do everything they can to ensure that there is equilibrium in our environment so that our native flora and fauna and the whole ecology can be preserved. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1362 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

It is of utmost importance that we do not destroy our topsoil, and that is what it is all about. We need to be able to develop the land by natural means. We need to maintain our topsoil. We cannot continue to damage our natural soil further and further by using superphosphate and a whole variety of chemical sprays in production because that damages not only the soil but our Australian native vegetation, which is of great value.

I dare say that 20 or 30 years hence, people from all over the world will seek to examine our native flora. We need to protect and preserve it. There is only a limited number of countries in the world that still have virgin soil that has not been degraded or damaged in some way. Australia is fortunate to be one of those countries, with its small population. Even in Victoria, which is more densely populated than other States, there are species that scholars all around the world admire and are interested in studying; they recommend that we should save our flora for the benefit of future generations.

We have a responsibility and obligation, as a Parliament and as a community and as part of the world community, to protect our native flora and fauna. If that means that there will be a smaller area available for subdivision in my electorate and that a few parcels of land have to be left over to save a certain species of flora or fauna, so be it. In many cases, the government has not only talked about but has committed money to this area.

The previous liberal government talked about the salinity program, but it is this government that has actually put in the money to do the necessary work, and it has committed itself to the task year after year.

I wonder what the opposition will do in the future, what its policy will be and what amount it will commit to these sorts of programs. I wonder how much the National Party and its constituents will get for the salinity program under a coalition government.

I am sure it will be much less than this Labor government has contributed and I am sure the commitment of the coalition in future will not be as strong as the commitment this government has shown to the farming and rural people and their friends that we have looked after; we have committed ourselves to various areas, not only the salinity aspect.

We have also instigated a program of buying back land that was previously allowed to be subdivided. In areas like Ninety Mile Beach, Phillip Island and the Keilor electorate, the government is actually buying back land that contains flora and fauna of significance and value.

We now have a program of buying back that land that previous conservative governments, which were no doubt supported by the National Party, allowed to be subdivided. I refer to wetlands and other areas that should never have been subdivided. For example, in Warburton, land was subdivided and many trees had to be cut down; as a result the topsoil was just washed down the slopes. There was no need to have floods or heavy rains; there needed to be only a light shower and the houses would move down the slopes. It is that sort of action that took place in the past that we are trying to prevent in future. It is part and parcel of this planning amendment to protect the flora and fauna. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1363

All the noise that has been made by spokesmen for the farmers has really been aimed in the wrong direction. They have addressed only one aspect: that is, the simple, selfish belief that if they confused the issue everybody would be opposed to it. The plain and simple fact is that this planning amendment is of benefit to soil conservation in this State. Many people have talked about soil conservation, but they have not taken responsible action. The planning amendment is part of the attempt to save flora and fauna and stop further degradation and loss of urban and arable land for the farming community and even those big holdings around the metropolitan area. Insurance companies and so on have bought up land around the metropolitan area and are waiting to subdivide it and thereby destroy the remaining flora and fauna. In the Basalt Plains area, for example, there are species of flora that are found only in that area. That is why I support Planning Amendment SS and why I suggest that the Liberal Party should reconsider its position. I am sure the electorate of Victoria will not thank the Liberal Party for trying to block this sort of responsible action by a government that has shown its commitment by not only talking about it but also putting its money where its mouth is. The government will continue its commitment to ensuring that all Victorians are treated fairly when it comes to saving our natural flora. Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) - The arguments put by the honourable member for Keilor today were very compelling, and I am sure everyone in my electorate will be delighted to read the record of his speech to understand his concern about native plants and vegetation! Of course, the honourable member has also put a compelling argument as to why a few of us may one day have to have a full-scale debate about the problems of the city, the whole community generally and some of the things that are occurring. One has only to consider the pollution of Port Phillip Bay and the fact that the Environment Protection Authority has advised the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works that it should consider cleaning the drainage water running off the streets after a rainfall. Perhaps honourable members should be debating how long it will be before heavy metals pouring into the bay from Werribee are stopped. Perhaps then people would understand the issues. The problem is far greater than the narrow argument government members have put forward in suggesting that this is simply a rural problem. The issue being debated today affects people living all over the State. The honourable member for Gippsland East gave the House a good run-down of many of the issues that are debated in local communities. Victorians have a long way to go before they understand the effects of government action. Today honourable members are lucky in having the opportunity of debating Planning Amendment SS, which has been in existence for eighteen months. Yesterday the Premier moved: That this House endorses the application of Planning Amendment SS - State section planning schemes to protect native vegetation in Victoria. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1364 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

The Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution, moved: That all the words after "House" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "supports the protection of native vegetation in Victoria by a legislative system which recognises freehold land ownership, regional diversity and community cooperation in its application" . I look forward to the Premier responding to that amendment. For the first time in eighteen months honourable members can debate this regulation which has })een imposed on Victorians to different degrees in different regions. I am delighted that at long last this Chamber is being used to debate an issue that is of enormous significance to Victorians. Perhaps as a result of the debate the government and the media will recognise that what was said yesterday and today by honourable members on both sides of the House is little different in nature. There is probably little difference in what the community would like to achieve on the issue of native vegetation. I hope the government will recognise that Planning Amendment SS, which has been in place for some time, is not a good regulation and is not the way to tackle or solve the problem. The regulation is an example of the type of approach that creates confrontation and wide differences of opinion. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Gippsland East gave examples of the heartache and problems created for people in country areas where the regulation has been imposed. The honourable member demonstrated how a bad regulation has been badly managed and that the sorts of controls intended by the government have not been put in place. If the government had adopted the proper course the community would have a better understanding of native vegetation. All Parliaments have limitations. A government can pass laws that may not be acceptable to the community if it has the numbers in Parliament I suggest that if Parliament passes a law that is not acceptable the law will fail. In this case Parliament did not pass the law. The law was imposed eighteen months ago by a planning amendment that was never debated in Parliament As a result of the debate yesterday and today on a regulation imposed eighteen months ago, perhaps the media will pick up the ball and ask how laws of this State can be changed by regulation without Parliaments discussing them. I suggest that we are abusing Parliament by ignoring its authority. Ms Kimer interjected. Mr STEGGALL - I will give the Premier another example. Recently she made a statement announcing the Victoria First program. She did not make her statement in Parliament and have it debated. The Premier went outside and released her statement to the media. It is government by press release! Unfortunately the government is doing this time and again. Parliament is becoming more and more irrelevant. I am delighted the Premier has moved the motion and has provided sufficient time for the issues to be debated. I hope the community is beginning to understand that PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1365

honourable members are keen to impose proper and reasonable restrictions to look after our native vegetation. I represent the Swan Hill electorate, which has a good deal of remnant vegetation. In my electorate we face many of the problems referred to earlier by the honourable member for Keilor. The Mallee has significant problems with salinity and a whole range of other issues. I would be delighted if the Premier took up the reasoned amendment to assist in introducing legislation that would tackle and work through problems on a regional basis. The problems faced by the Mallee and Murray Valley areas are totally different from those faced by East Gippsland. What might work in my electorate may not work in the East Gippsland area. The government has imposed a planning amendment that is supposed to operate right across Victoria, despite the enormous regional diversities and differences. Honourable members have referred to the fact that the government has been involved in a consultation process, a panel system involving 400 submissions. The Minister for Conservation and Environment is reported in todays newspapers as criticising the coalition for not putting any submissions to the panel. I thought we had sorted that problem out when debating local government legislation a few years ago. The Parliament of Victoria is the place for members of Parliament to raise and debate issues. We should not be involved in that panel process. I suggest that would be politicising panel discussions. This is the Chamber where honourable members have the opportunity of examining and passing judgment on such issues. Again I congratulate the Premier for bringing this motion before the House. Yesterday the Premier referred to the fact that resbictions had been placed on her home in Williamstown because it is in a heritage area. She asked why should Planning Amendment SS, which applies across the State, not be accepted. The heritage planning requirement that has been placed on the Premier's home in Williamstown is a local planning requirement that has been imposed and accepted by the local community. That same restriction has not been placed on my home in Swan Hill. Planning schemes are developed to suit individual regions and local areas, but this amendment is a blanket provision which is being imposed throughout Victoria and it will not work. The fact that the coalition is opposed to this planning amendment does not mean that it is not interested in the goals the amendment is trying to achieve. The government is surprised at the direction taken by the coalition, which realises that there are problems in some areas of Victoria and that it is desirable to keep remnant vegetation areas in place and not do those things that the media has indicated will occur. The Melbourne media, in their reporting of this debate, have demonstrated once again that they have no idea what they are talking about. They will not try to print the truth or to get to the real story. I am sorry that this has developed into an issue which has enabled the media to run a green argument for the amendment and paint anyone who challenges the concept of the regulation as being evil or wrong. The fact that the PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1366 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

opposition wants reasonable proposals on a regional basis is not understood and the media should attempt to understand these issues. Members of the government have stated that approximately 15 ()()() hectares of land in Victoria have been cleared every year since 1972. I do not understand why they have picked the starting point of 1972. Why did they not say 1982 or 1983? The world was a different place in 1972. The amount of clearing in my electorate of Swan Hill during the past few years is probably zero. During the same period there have been considerable plantings of native vegetation and the community has picked up the LandCare and salinity programs that were introduced by the Premier when she was the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands. Those programs have been accepted in my electorate and they are working well. In fact, some headway is being made in the battle against salinity and that is occurring on a bipartisan basis. That sort of thing does not make a headline in the Melbourne press. The conservationists do not come up to Swan Hill and look at the good news.

Yesterday, on the front steps of Parliament House, honourable members saw a pitiful display of 25 children lined up for the television cameras. That is what the people of Melbourne saw. Perhaps there should be some honesty and truth in these issues!

Farm plans are an important part of the amendment and it is said that anyone who has an approved farm plan will not have to seek a permit. Many members of the government have said that farm plans are good and are not a problem. I agree with that; they are not a problem and many more are being introduced each year.

Mr Evans - Who approves them?

Mr STEGGALL - No-one. The plans are put together for the farmer to manage his or her property. The plans proposed in the amendment will be put together and approved by a bureaucrat.

The rural community is satisfied with the salinity management programs and it is adopting a community approach to those programs. The Murray-Darling strategy plan is based on obtaining community support so that the rural community can live and farm in this complicated country. That is what is occurring today, but someone has come along with this idea and is virtually telling us that we do not know what we are talking about. Bureaucrats will make or break farmers. That is going backwards. The government is now saying that having the bureaucracy making the decisions is the way to go.

I remember when the Premier was the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands she had a different attitude. She introduced a number of consultation-based programs which made some headway and are still making headway with the problems that exist today. This amendment is based on having the bureaucracy make the decisions and does not involve education or understanding of the rural community and the issues involved.

If the amendment is passed the regulations will not work because the people of country Victoria will not wear them. There will be many more cases similar to those cited by the PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday. 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1367

honourable member for Gippsland East, because the people in rural Victoria will not agree with the law as proposed today. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission has done an enormous amount of work, particularly in the mid-Murray and north-west regions of Victoria. The farming communities are not keen on large-scale clearing. Shires, councils, farming organisations and conservation groups have joined together to ensure that the degradation of land does not continue. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission is examining ground water levels in north- western Victoria and is implementing programs that are community-based in an attempt to get more tree cover and planting of native species, and that is working. The Shire of Kerang wrote to me on 10 April and it sums up the issue when it states: Whilst council embraces the principle of encouraging the retention of native vegetation on private land, it believes that the regulations will, in their present fonn, simply not work because of a number of technical faults; e.g., the grazing of domestic stock on public lands be technically prohibited and in practice farmers cannot and will not conform to the regulations. Council asks that you take action to block the regulations in the Upper House and request the government to address concerns about the regulations. The last part is most important. The view of country Victoria is that the implementation of Planning Amendment S5-type regulation should be done properly. This does not fit the bill; it is not reasonable as a blanket cover across Victoria. An amendment should be put in its place that is workable and reasonable. The Shire of Kyneton wrote to me this week and in part it says: You are advised that council supports the views of the federation- That is the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) - in relation to administrative cost envisaging many unintended consequences of the regulations. Council seeks that you vote to block the regulation in the Upper House and that it only be passed when it is modified to a point acceptable to the federation and rural municipalities, should this be possible. It is possible and the debate in Parliament is proof of that. The Shire of Wycheproof is a large shire that covers the Mallee area. It has two towns, Wycheproof and Sea Lake, as well as a series of smaller settlements. The shire is concerned about the regulation and in its response to me this week it says: I refer to our recent telephone conversation, and advise that council supports the retention of these controls. Council realises that there may be the need for substantial amendments to the legislation, but its main concern is that it does not want the controls removed altogether. The people of northern Victoria in my electorate recognise the need for regulation to deal with the issue of native vegetation and the amendment moved by the Leader of the coalition parties covers that matter perfectly. If the Premier wishes to achieve a bipartisan' approach to tackle this difficult and vexed question she can do that in a proper and meaningful way. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1368 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

I enjoyed the comments of the honourable member for Keilor about land that had been bought back by the government for conservation reasons in Keilor. In January I received a letter from the Sunraysia Mallee Fowl Preservation Society which says: I write on behalf of the Mallee Fowl Preservation Society of Sunraysia re privately-owned land near Wandown Nature Research in the Shire of Swan Hill. In all, the privately-owned land is 1778 hectares of which 400 hectares is uncleared natural Mallee land. Within the uncleared sector, there are at least eight known active Mallee fowl mounds. The State of Victoria classes the Mallee fowl as vulnerable. If more Mallee land is cleared, Mallee fowl will become endangered. Endangered species if not protected will become extinct. It is to this end we write to you. The owner of the land is aware of the Mallee fowl and its vulnerability, and is prepared to sell the land providing it remains uncleared and used as a flora and fauna reserve. If it cannot be bought, the owner will of economic necessity clear the land for farming. Already they hold pennits for the clearing of 15 hectares and 25 hectares respectively. Once cleared the Mallee fowl is threatened. I sent a letter off to the Minister for Conservation and Environment asking what the policy was and seeking advice on whether the government was prepared to assist with the purchase of the land. The Minister wrote: My department's Mildura office is trying to bring about the purchase or exchange of the uncleared land in question, and is actively seeking funds. I understand that the Mallee Fowl Preservation Society has already offered some funds to aid in the purchase of this land. Any help you could give in identifying other local sources of funds to assist with the purchase would be greatly appreciated. Honourable members will be pleased to know that in the interim the Victorian Conservation Trust has come to assist and it is in the process of obtaining funds that will allow the landholder to purchase other cleared land. There is plenty of other cleared land in the MaDee. It was only this week that the Premier admitted we are subsidising Alcoa to the tune of $150 million a year in its operation and yet when she moved the motion she spoke about how important this discussion is. I agree with that, but I also believe the government might not have the will to deal with these issues. Honourable members will be pleased to know that people in north-western Victoria did not clear the land. It is being purchased and it wiD remain uncleared and hopefully the Mallee fowl will continue to prosper in that area. The native vegetation clearing control in Planning Amendment 55 is unacceptable to people in regional Victoria. The VFF said in a letter to me last month that it is an attempt to transfer the responsibility for the management of farms from the farmer to the government. That is true when one examines the guidelines, permits and operations of the amendment. The VFF believes the amendment will be counterproductive in the improvement of general farming practices and that it might undo a lot of the good work that has been done in this area. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1369

It is also the product of successive administrative demands and costs of already under-resourced local and State instrumentalities. No mention has been made of the extra strain and effort that is needed to utilise or put these regulations into effect.

I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the Premier will give consideration to a solution that the House would be happy to work through and accept. The amendment is unacceptable and I believe the government should withdraw it and set down procedures for a reasonable and proper approach to native vegetation in Victoria.

Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) - I oppose the motion moved by the Premier and support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

An Honourable Member - The rural rump!

Mr AUSTIN - It is interesting that an honourable member opposite has interjected "the rural rump". One of the most exciting aspects about the debate - I am not talking only about the debate in Parliament but also the debate that has taken place over recent days and weeks - is that it is not just a rural issue but one that has captured the interest and imagination of people in all walks of life, particularly in metropolitan Melbourne. It is utterly wrong for anyone to suggest that members of the National Party or rural members of the Liberal Party make up the tail that is wagging the dog. I have been delighted at the commonsense attitude adopted by people in the metropolitan area.

The debate has been fascinating. The main reason the Premier moved the motion was to score political points; it was not to try to change the course of history or the decision made by the coalition. The government is in disarray and has no sound program, and the motion was moved because the government believed it could embarrass the coalition on an issue that has a large emotional content.

The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is designed to show that there are other ways of bringing about the result all Victorians want - sensible, workable and practical environmental controls. The debate has shown that members of the opposition know what they are talking about on this issue and that members of the government have little knowledge of the subject. There is a right way and there is a wrong way to apply necessary environmental controls, and the correct method is certainly not that used by the government through Planning Amendment 55.

The Labor Party throughout Australia is in complete and utter disarray. Honourable members have seen what has happened in Western Australia and they know the situation in South Australia. Federally, Mr Hawke and the supposed greatest Treasurer in the world are continually bickering, but the worst situation exists in Victoria.

It is fascinating to look back on what has happened to the leadership of the Victorian government. Five senior members of the government who were in place not so long ago have all disappeared: two Leaders from the Upper House have gone, and the former Premier, the former Deputy Premier and the former Treasurer have all disappeared from PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1370 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 17 April 1991

the front bench in this place. Other Ministers are gradually stepping backwards one by one. Members of the government who have spoken during the debate have paid lip-service to what their Leaders have told them. They spoke about farm management plans, permits and so on without having any knowledge of what they mean. Every farmer has a farm management plan; it may not be in writing and it may not include aerial photographs, but every farmer has such a plan. Planning Amendment SS provides that bureaucrats will tell farmers what their management plans will be, and that will create a bureaucratic nightmare.

The government has got it wrong; it wants to set up a panel to investigate the matter and put in place what the government intimates it wants. The consultative process will take place only after the panel has made its decision and has written the rules, and that is why the system will not work.

Several speakers have referred to a tree plan prepared by Peter Woodgate and Peter Black. The plan includes the claim that Victoria's forest coverage had supposedly decreased from 88 per cent in 1887 to 36 per cent in 1987. That is the sort of claim that is pushed down the necks of schoolchildren as a supposed example of what the farming community and others have done to tree cover in Victoria.

The weakness in that argument is that most of the clearing of native vegetation took place many years ago when the first European settlers came to Victoria. Land was cleared during the gold rush, particularly in the area I represent. Tens of thousands of people came looking for gold and they chopped down trees to use as firewood or as timber to shore up mine shafts. Many of the forests that were cleared are now regrowth forests and are bigger and better than they were before. Of course, many other areas were not allowed to regrow. Another place where clearing took place perhaps to a greater extent than it should have was the Western District. Timber mills throughout the area cut down large red gums and used them for paving the streets of Melbourne.

There are questions about the method used to gain the information about tree coverage. Satellite imagery has some flaws in its attempts to provide true and accurate information. As has been pointed out by other speakers, it does not record any timber less than 2 metres in height and it does not record any density growth less than 10 per cent. It is important to note that the smallest unit the system has the capacity to record is 15 hectares, in other words, any treed area less than 15 hectares in size is not recorded in the statistical evidence used to make decisions about these matters.

Anyone who drives around Victoria cannot help but be impressed by the amount of tree planting that has taken place. There is no need for me to go to great lengths to explain the work that has been done by the 75 LandCare groups in Victoria and many other tree planting groups; the work they have done in the past few years is beyond belief. This sort of attitude from the government ruins people's confidence and their ability to go ahead and spend their time and money on future programs. A tremendous amount of PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1371

damage ,has been done, not so much in this debate but in the time leading up to it; it has been a great underminer of confidence. Recently on the 7.30 RepJrt the Minister for Conservation and Environment suggested that farmers would get their chainsaws and immediately start cutting down trees. He insulted the farmers of this State by suggesting they are irresponsible in the management of their properties. Like the Premier, he gave 15 ()()() hectares as the area that has each year been denuded of trees in recent times. That is erroneous and inaccurate; the true figure would be somewhere in the vicinity of half of that and even that does not include the small areas that have been planted by farmers and LandCare groups in recent times. The truth is that most farmers are environmentally responsible, especially those who live in the more sensitive areas.

If one took a survey of farmers throughout the State of Victoria one would find that most of them have planted far more trees than they have ever cut down. The Mallee has had a fair doing over in this debate but honourable members ought to realise that there is still 38 per cent of the Mallee that consists of Mallee scrub and it is doubtful that it will ever be cleared.

In hindsight we recognise that much of the area that was cleared in the past should have been left alone, but farmers cannot now be asked to pay the price for those decisions made years ago through either ignorance or greed. We can say that the farming community and others in country Victoria who today have a responsibility in this area take it seriously. The opposition takes great exception to those people being insulted by this government.

Let me tell the House what has happened historically with regard to protecting Victoria from land clearing. It was Sir Henry Bolte, who was a farmer, who introduced the Land Conservation Council to the State of Victoria. That council was set up to advise and make recommendations to the government. It was formed because of the controversy that occurred over plans to clear part of the Little Desert for farming.

The truth is that the greatest clearers of land in the past have been governments. It is only in recent times because of the formation of the Land Conservation Council and the attitude of the former Liberal government that there has been a net gain of tree growth on public land. There is a challenge on private land but I know you agree, Mr Acting Speaker, that that challenge has to be met responsibly and has to have the cooperation of the people who are the true conservationists, the farmers who own the land.

It is also vital that we recognise that the whole of Victoria is not the same: one cannot compare East Gippsland with the Mallee, the Western District or many other parts of the State. Planning Amendment SS treats them all as though the conditions are exactly the same.

The Premier talked about the cooperation that took place in the discussions and the lead-up to the introduction of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill, which passed through Parliament and became an Act. She said that with the Honourable Marie Tehan the PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1372 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

issues were worked through in a sound and sensible way. That is what should have happened with this matter; it should have been put in legislation and worked through. When the first draft of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill appeared it was flawed. You, Sir, will remember the anger of many country people and the leaders in land management, particularly the Victorian Farmers Federation. Sensible and practical people came together and worked through that legislation and came up with something that is now considered among the best legislatiol,l of that kind in the world. The trouble with this government is that it does not trust farmers. What it has done in its approach to this matter has led to continual confrontation.

In my office I have a poster put out by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service that talks about the endangered species of Australia. The definition of an endangered species - not the governmenrs endangered species - of flora and fauna in Victoria is "one that could become extinct in the wild in the next ten to twenty years". It is also interesting to note on that five of the species considered on that poster, which was published in 1979, to be endangered are no longer endangered. In many ways we are heading in the right direction. The poster goes on to say that there are 40 species of mammals, 209 species of plants, 37 species of birds, 5 species of frogs and 5 species of freshwater fish in danger in Australia. It then illustrates with coloured pictures 43 of the endangered species of birds and mammals of Australia. It is interesting to look at the situation in Victoria because of those 43 birds and mammals that are endangered species only 3 relate to the State of Victoria. One of them is the peregrine falcon. That is endangered because of people who want to engage in falconry or because of the use of DOT, not because of any clearing of native vegetation or timber. The second is the orange bellied parrot, which is found only in the marshes along the coast of Victoria and has nothing to do with the issues honourable members have been talking about. The third one is the helmeted honey eater, which is found in our forests.

The truth needs to be spoken more often when discussing the issue of native vegetation and the problems in Victoria's environment. Honourable members owe it to the children of our State to ensure that reports that are written and statements that are made are based on fact so that our kids grow up understanding the truth of the situation of our great State, rather than being fed a lot of emotional nonsense that is completely untrue, as many members on the government side have tried to introduce during the debate.

Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) - I support strongly the alternative proposal moved by my colleagues. Acceptance of that proposal would result in legislation being introduced that would establish a reasonable balance between the rights of freehold landowners and the need to protect native vegetation.

It has been interesting to listen to the different arguments put by honourable members on opposite sides of the House. One of the most important matters honourable members should consider - and I hope the Premier will take this on board - is that sound and PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETA nON

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1373

conscientious discussions should take place to arrive at a bipartisan agreement which I am sure can be achieved. My electorate has seven local councils and I have had submissions from them. On considering what they have said, I note that they represent people who earn some 10 per cent of the agricultural income of this State in an area covering in the vicinity of 750 000 hectares of privately owned farmland, contributing in the order of $400 million to the economy of this State. All honourable members would agree that is a fair contribution. The Premier and the government must consider carefully what proposed Planning Amendment SS will do to country Victoria and the people who live and work there. Without the contribution of those people, the State cannot succeed; it cannot survive. I am pleased to see the Minister for Agriculture is sitting at the table. In the Cabinet room he will be able to put the case for rural areas and ensure it is considered. The coalition's proposal recognises the marked ecological differences between the various regions in the State. Any legislation requires considerable cooperation between the government, landowners and the general community in its preparation. Parliament can and must achieve this important agreement between all concerned with the protection and preservation of native vegetation. The benefits of reaching agreement have been proved in South Australia where the recently adopted legislation was achieved through discussion over a period of time and agreement being reached between the government, the opposition and the farming community. The South Australian experience proves clearly that the controls that address the concerns of the relevant interest groups can be introduced with broad support. The Victorian government's attempt to control native vegetation clearing is divisive of all the people involved. In late 1989 the government acted virtually overnight by imposing interim controls that put a blanket ban on land clearing throughout country Victoria. The ban had an enormous effect on Victoria's farming community. Families in the country had their lives altered, probably for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately many landowners were caught, although it was not their fault. They had tried to do the right thing by obtaining the necessary permits and doing all that they needed to do but they found themselves with a blanket ban on clearing. As a result of the interim controls, enormous hardships have been experienced. Farmers in heavily timbered areas who had been clearing small areas each year, generally as their finances permitted, were particularly affected by the introduction of the blanket ban on clearing. They had undertaken the clearing to ensure the long-term viability of their farms, which is an appropriate matter for them to consider. They had bought properties in good faith, believing they were assured of being able to put their plans into effect. As I said, their business ventures disappeared entirely, virtually overnight. Often farmers have relied on loans to buy their properties, and in preparing their plans they took into consideration whether their farms would return a profit. The interim controls have jeopardised their future and their security. . PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1374 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

The controls on native vegetation clearing introduced by the State government are without precedence in the history of this State in their intrusion into the rights of private landowners. The farmers have been left with nowhere to go and now the government is seeking to impose long-term controls over what have been sound land management procedures undertaken over the years by landowners.

Every time a farmer wants to clear native trees, shrubs or grasses, he will require a permit. I ask: who will control the granting of the permits? The proposed amendment will have an enormous effect on local government because responsibility for the granting of permits to clear native vegetation will go back to local government. Over the past few weeks I have spoken to a number of councillors who are horrified at the prospect. One of the biggest problems associated with the proposal relates to who will be the bogey man. The answer is: local government councillors will have to consider and, if necessary, refuse applications for permits; the government will not be in that situation. Local councillors will be those in the horrible position of being accused of having caused all the problems.

If Planning Amendment 55 were accepted, it would be unmanageable and unworkable. Farmers would be put at the mercy of extreme conservationists who would make a practice of appealing against every application for a permit. I am concerned about this aspect of the proposal. Like most honourable members, I received a copy of a letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation. Mrs Margaret McDonald put a personal note on my copy of the letter, saying:

We would be pleased to discuss this matter with you.

I took up the offer because I considered it worth discussing the matter with someone who was prepared to put a personal note on a letter that came under an official letterhead. Mrs McDonald and I discussed the matter but unfortunately the ACF had made up its mind. It is a pity that the discussion did not take place before any interim controls or proposed amendment had been introduced. I lay the blame for the current problems completely on those people because they have caused all the problems. Matters could have been resolved if some discussion had taken place before the government proceeded with its action. As I said, the ACF had made up its mind; its members have their heads in the sand. They are determined that no clearing will proceed, whatever happens. I have news for them. It will proceed because it provides the livelihood for people in country Victoria and it will turn this State around. Without it we can say goodbye to everything. I hope those members of the conservation movement who have expressed strong support for the Victorian government's heavy-handed regulation-making system will consider the issues carefully. The opposition certainly will not play second fiddle to green constituents in Victoria!

It is interesting to note that the Australian Conservation Foundation was deeply involved in what happened in South Australia. I ask: why could the ACF not be involved here? If its members were fair dinkum and realistic, it would be. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1375

The government must approach the issue of planned native vegetation protection on a cooperative basis; it must cut out all the bureaucratic interference and lead by example. Here is a significant opportunity for the Premier, who has sat at the table during most of the debate and listened to it, to listen further and understand that what must be achieved can be. '

Tree planting groups throughout the State have done marvellous work, and I know of many farmers who have planted thousands and thousands of trees. It is all very well to say that farmers take the bulldozer to native vegetation, but I am led to believe that before the last election the Premier said that if the National Party became part of the government it would take a chainsaw to the Royal Botanic Gardens. I take that as an insult; certainly it is disgraceful for a Premier to say such irresponsible and ill-considered things. Some of the local councils in my electorate have expressed their frustration about the procedures required by the present planning permits. For example, the Shire of Rosedale is facing a problem with roadworks along the Traralgon-Maffra road at the Victoria and Cowan streets intersection at Toongabbie. The roadworks reached the stage where the shire believed two trees and some minor saplings had to be removed along the Traralgon-Maffra road, and a planning permit was lodged for their removal. The shire engineer attached a design plan for the improvement of the intersection which showed it was necessary to remove the subject trees. The shire engineer says that alternative treatments have been investigated but that an acceptable design that avoids the removal of the trees is not feasible. After it had lodged the application government red tape required the shire to do a number of things - and such a roadworks program should not be stopped halfway through by this sort of red tape. The regional manager of the Department of Planning and Urban Growth wrote to the secretary of the Shire of Rosedale in the following terms, referring to the shire's permit application of 4 March 1991:

As the Minister considers that granting a pennit may cause material detriment to other people, he requires you to give notice of the application To do this you must: Display a copy of the enclosed public notice (form 4.3) at both ends of the proposed roadworks on an appropriate signboard for at least fourteen days and maintain it in good condition. Placement of the notice at the Toongabbie store would be an acceptable alternative. Publish the enclosed public notice (form 4.3) in the Latrobe Valley Express for two consecutive issues. Before the Minister can decide your application you must verify that you have carried out these instructions by completing and returning the enclosed declaration The letter then carries on with more rubbish that does nothing more than make unnecessary work for people. I should have thought a commonsense approach would have enabled the regional manager of the department, based in Traralgon, to quickly and PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1376 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

simply allow the program to proceed under certain guidelines. Present procedures are creating havoc and are not allowing responsible people to get on with the show. I am aware that other opposition speakers want to conbibute to the debate, which the Premier wants to close this afternoon. But it is important to emphasise that shires such as the Shire of Woorayl, the head offices of which are based in Leongatha, are not opposed to reasonable and practical controls. A letter written to me by the shire president says: Woorayl council is not opposed to reasonable and practical controls; in fact we are one of few municipalities in the State with a properly formulated roadside conservation strategy. We are, however, very concerned that the proposals as they stand, even after the adoption of the independent panel report which itself adopted some of our submissions, are both unworkable and unfair in their approach. The shire has sent a great deal of information to me along the same lines. The Premier has the opportunity to get this right, but it will mean further discussion and careful thought, especially consideration of whether legislation is required. Certainly I ask the Premier to carefully consider the arguments put forward today by members of the opposition. Mr KENNETI (Burwood) - I thank the honourable member for Gippsland South for not using his full time, so enabling other opposition speakers who want to speak to the motion to make brief conbibutions. I refute the erroneous comments made by the Premier when she put the motion and throughout the debate by interjection, implying that the position adopted by the coalition has been driven by the rural members of the Liberal Party and the National Party. That is not correct. like so much of what the Premier and her colleagues say these days, such comments are made either, with the kindest interpretation, from a lack of knowledge, or, as is more likely, with the deceit that has been the hallmark of the government since 1985. H the Premier's knowledge of what happens at coalition meetings is as specific and accurate as she claims, she has been deceitful because she would know full well that a number of us from metropolitan Melbourne have expressed concerns about the regulations. My position is clear: I am against the motion moved by the Premier and for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, because it is time the community recognised that in any society a balance must be struck between the needs of the environment and those who live on the planet. No society can afford to recognise only one element of that equation. We are better educated than we have ever been about the importance of conserving our waterways, forests and atmosphere; but we must recognise that when we talk about the environment we talk not just about the air we breathe or the quality of our soil and the things that grow in it but about the quality of life of those who live on planet Earth. The motion moved by the Premier, as does Planning Amendment SS, sets up a conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of the environment, because there is no PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1377

balance in what is being suggested. The opposition is not arguing that there should not be a balance, but if we want proper and sensible controls they must be put into effect through legislation that we can define and debate. In Victoria, Australia and throughout the world we and particularly our children have been the beneficiaries of education about the environment for the past twenty years. But the time has come for the needs of those who live in the environment to be recognised. As it stands the motion must be defeated and the Leader of the Opposition's amendment supported because the motion threatens to put out of kilter the fine balance between the needs of natural substances and the needs of people. The motion also says to people who own land that they will not be allowed control over their own property. Over the past twenty years the fundamental rights of individuals to control their own destinies have been eroded. Governments have fought for two decades now to enforce the notion that they know better than landowners or the operators of small businesses. The bottom line is simple: any regulation such as the one we are debating is implemented with the purpose of controlling the few who act irresponsibly. Unfortunately in our society, whether among those on the roads, those with firearms, politicians, journalists, you name it, there are always a few who spoil it for the rest. It does not matter how much legislation or regulation is in place, those who want to abuse the system will do so. The majority of our farmers, like the majority of our small businessmen, our politicians and our journalists are responsible people. Therefore it is hopeless introducing regulation that imposes such incredible bureaucratic control and cost on the vast majority of citizens in the name of the environment. The motion moved by the Premier will force all landowners who wish to clear any area larger than 0.4 hectares to apply to a local council for permission. If it is larger than 5 hectares it must go to the Department of Conservation and Environment. That is hopeless bureaucracy. Again I say 99 per cent of farmers and owners of land will act responsibly just as 99 per cent of people whether they are of my age, older or younger want to preserve, conserve and develop what they have. Therefore, we are imposing a regulation that will force 99 per cent of law-abiding citizens to seek approval from council or from the Department of Conservation and Environment. The bottom line is that our local municipal councils are strapped for resources, like everyone is. How will they handle this extra cost? Only yesterday at Seymour I was approached by the father of a young boy who was given notice at the Department of Conservation and Environment. He said, /lMr Kennett, what can you do to keep my son's job?". I said that I could probably do little because unfortunately the community of Victoria no longer produces enough wealth to employ people on the public payroll. So already in the deparbnent we are seeing a shedding of labour and that will happen in every deparbnent in the next few months in a way that one could never have predicted because we can no longer afford to keep them. Yet the Premier's motion will mean we will be imposing more cost and more demands on a reducing staff.

77825/91-45 PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1378 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

If the ideal is right, as contained within this regulation, how is one physically going to do it? The Minister for Agriculture, who is at the table, knows what happens when the law changes dramatically and perhaps hundreds or thousands of people have to make applications in a twelve-month period. That cannot be done in an orderly way without incurring extra cost.

Even if the principle was right the practice of the motion is unworkable. For that reason alone it should be thrown out. Firstly, it seeks to address fewer than 1 per cent of the community who abuse commonsense practices in our community. Secondly, it denies an individual a right to control his or her assets. Thirdly, it imposes huge extra cost on bureaucracy, be it at the State or municipal level.

I do not want to go into detail in my contribution today. However, we are addressing fundamentals when we respond to the Premier's motion. The Premier argued today that we are out to destroy native vegetation. She knows in her own heart that that is absolutely wrong. She cannot make that claim. We will support anything that is fair and reasonable, based on commonsense, and we recognise that in any society, regardless of laws and regulations, a group of people will abuse the system.

Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect society. No legislation or regulation will change that. We cannot possibly support regulation or legislation that simply adds further burdens of cost and delays, in this case firstly to the farmers and secondly to municipal and State government bureaucracies.

The final point that motivated me to speak today os that the Premier said that it is only she and her party that have any concern for native vegetation or for a whole range of conservation issues. That is grossly incorrect. It is also incorrect to say that our position on this issue has been motivated by the National Party and those of the Uberal Party from rural Victoria.

I represent a metropolitan-based electorate. I have no farms in my electorate but I can tell you - and it is not often I disclose what happens in a party room and I run the risk of what may follow - I was one of those who spoke out strongly for throwing out Planning Amendment 55 because it did not make sense. It is not an issue of metropolitan versus rural interests or metropolitan versus rural politics, it is a matter of ensuring that the legislation and regulations we pass through this House are workable and fair and that they meet the mix between the needs for the environment and the needs of those who live within our society.

The Premier's motion does not do that. It is an hysterical pitch for the support of the environmental movement in isolation. I believe environmentalists today are a lot more educated than the Minister for Agriculture or the Premier give them credit for. They are no different from you and I; they are no better environmentalists and no worse but they also recognise that when we talk about an environmental movement we should be looking at the quality of life for people and the quality of houses for senior citizens and those who are trying to bring up young families. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1379

The Premier recently spoke about the unemployed. What is the quality of life for them? Yet the Premier comes into this House and introduces a measure with which she tries to identify her government and herself as the only ones concerned about the environment per se. That is dishonest. The Premier is not the only one with this concern. We also care, whether we are from metropolitan or rural Victoria. Let us have no more of this hypocrisy. Let us not have politicians trying to steal the favour of minority groups or majority groups piece by piece. The community is crying out for leadership by politicians and governments that are prepared to represent the interests of the community fairly, squarely and honestly. We have been deceived for eight years. My message to the Premier is: this is an important issue; it can be addressed properly through legislation which is properly debated, is fair and recognises the interests of society as a whole. It is deceitful of the Premier to articulate a view that we on this side of the House, especially those who represent metropolitan areas, are either motivated by those from the bush or do not care about the environment or that our coIIeagues do not care about the environment. One cannot survive in the bush if one does not look after one's basic assets which are the land, the soil, the trees and so on. It is with much pleasure that I speak on the motion as a metropolitan member of Parliament and also as a Parliamentarian representing the State of Victoria. It does not matter to me whether a member of Parliament is rural or metropolitan, the bottom line is that any legislation we pass here must be workable. We must work towards an environment in this State which is certainly better than we have at the moment but recognises the interests of all. Mr JASPER (Murray VaIIey) - I join the debate that has proceeded in this House yesterday and today on the motion by the Premier. I support the comments made by opposition coalition members and I especiaIIy note the comments made by the honourable member for Burwood who has just resumed his seat. His comments about being a dty member of Parliament but recognising the problems being created for people in the country should these regulations be allowed to proceed were interesting. I reject totally the comments made by the Premier and the government members that country people have no recognition of the needs of conservation. I suggest that if government members went into country areas and talked to primary producers, people involved with councils and individuals they would find those people are extremely aware of the need for conservation throughout Victoria but they are also aware that Victoria must develop and achieve proper productivity from the land. As I indicated, it is interesting to hear the outrageous comments made by the Premier and other speakers for the government on the amendments. I strongly support the action taken by the coalition to ensure they are rejected in another place. It is also interesting to note the method used by the government to bring the provisions into being. The planning provisions were introduced in late 1989 on the basis that they would be given a twelve-month trial period. The Premier and other government PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1380 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

speakers have highlighted the fact that there had been an extensive investigation and a large number of submissions were made to the government. The new regulation, which is even more draconian in its implications for country people and primary producers, was put in place late last year on the basis of those submissions. Mr Speaker, you can understand the concern felt by me as a country member of Parliament representing the electorate of Murray Valley when I saw the provisions come into force and heard the government claim there had been extensive consultations and submissions made to the government. The government should have indicated that regulations to control native vegetation right across Victoria were going to come into force and then obtain feedback to gauge the response of the people most affected by them before they were introouced. I indicate my concern at the way the requirements have been brought into force. There has been no debate in Parliament on what amounts to an amendment to an Act of Parliament, and the regulations will not come under the scrutiny of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. That makes it even worse. As chainnan of that subcommittee I am involved in the scrutiny of regulations produced in Victoria under Acts of Parliament. I see a government not only trying to bypass the nonnal procedures of Parliament by not having the implications of these planning requirements debated in Parliament itself but also trying to bypass the nonnal system of regulation-making powers provided under the Subordinate Legislation Act and bypassing the scrutiny of the subordinate legislation subcommittee. I have had strong representations on this issue from primary producers in my electorate, from the representative organisations of primary producers, from the Victorian Farmers Federation and from municipalities across the electorate who are extremely concerned about the implications of these planning provisions. All the representations made to me personally and through my office in Wangaratta have requested me to oppose the provisions in total. No one has come into my office and said, ''We need to amend these provisions; we need to see how they operate in practice". All the representations I have received have been totally opposed to them and have recommended that I should take action to ensure they are rejected totally and that we go back to square one. There needs to be a cooperative approach. The government would get on much better if it adopted a cooperative approach and did not use a back-door methoo to get these provisions brought into force with the dramatic effects that have been indicated. I think the Minister for Agriculture will be responsive to the needs of country people and will attempt to assist primary producers in achieving not only the greatest possible production from the land they own but also the introduction of conservation measures for the long-term productivity of the land. One has only to speak to primary producers to know they are responsive and responsible with the land under their control. I suggest PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1381

the Minister would understand that, but that if he does not he will seek to meet with primary producers in an attempt to get a true understanding of the situation. As an example, I recently had a response from the Minister concerning the closure of offices of his department, and his response concerning retaining the departmental office at Cobram was responsible. I hope the Minister will continue with those sorts of actions; if he does he will receive support not only from within his department but also from primary producers. It is interesting to note the way the Victorian Farmers Federation has approached this issue. It has been very strong in its condemnation of these planning requirements. On 14 April a meeting of the VFF general council unanimously carried a resolution which summarises the problems the opposition sees in the planning amendments and outlines the actions which must be taken. The resolution was as follows: That the VFF totally reject Planning Amendment SS under the Planning and Environment Act because: (a) It attempts to transfer responsibility for management of farms from farmers to governments. That is dear from the implications in the provisions. The resolution continues:

(b) It will be counterproductive to the improvement of general farming practices. I reiterate that most primary producers are responsive and responsible with the land under their control in order that they gain the greatest productivity from the land. However, they are also conservationists in order to ensure that the land will be productive in the long term. The resolution continues: (c) It imposes excessive administrative demands and costs on farmers and already under-resourced local and State government instrumentalities. That is again an important point when considering these requirements. The fourth point in the resolution states: (d) It endorses a resolution calling for the resignation of Mr McCutcheon, the Minister for Planning and Housing. I can understand why the VFF would put that sort of motion forward, particularly the part seeking the resignation of the Minister. It appears the Minister has not properly consulted with the people who are most affected: those people living in country Victoria, and particularly primary producers.

That is typical of the approach the government has used recently in many of its actions: it is a sledge-hammer approach of saying, ''We are going to implement these planning provisions; we know what is best for Victoria and for people in country Victoria" and not coming to the community and talking to primary producers, country people or municipalities. The government wants to get Planning Amendment SS through: to proceed in the way it has will not get the support of the opposition or the people we represent in country Victoria. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETA TION

1382 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

As the honourable member for Burwood indicated, there was strong debate on these planning amendments in the coalition party room and there is no doubt there was total opposition to them from country members of the Liberal Party and from National Party members representing country electorates. There was a body of opinion in the coalition which believed the amendments could be amended to provide appropriate conservation measures concerning native vegetation. However, my total opposition was clear on the basis that even if you take out large chunks of the amendments there would still be parts left, the implications of which it would not be possible to determine until they were in place and operating. I believe I represented the majority view of the people I represent in saying we had to oppose the amendments in total, go back to square one and start again. I am also concerned about the comments being made by members of the government that now there will be no regulations in place and people will go into country areas and remove native vegetation because they know there are no regulations.

I suggest that if there had been a cooperative approach we would have been able to put appropriate regulations in place. We would not have the possibility of actions being taken by some people in country Victoria on the basis that they are improving their farm to get productivity from the land which may need to be cleared and for which they may have obtained approval in years gone by. Most people will be responsible in what they do. Many municipalities in my electorate are totally opposed to the regulations and I shall quote from some letters I have received. There are ten municipalities in my electorate and most have sent letters expressing their opposition to the regulations and . encouraging me as their political representative in Parliament to ensure these regulations are rejected. The Shire of Oxley provided a very detailed letter indicating the total opposition of the council to the regulations. They provide a number of reasons for their opposition and many of the reasons fall into place with the comments made by the Victorian Farmers Federation. I also received a letter from the United Shire of Beechworth which opposes the native vegetation retention regulations and says in the last paragraph:

Council considers that a bipartisan committee should be appointed to review the effects of this legislation and to draft an appropriate replacement capable of practical administration. Their concern was administration, which was a concern of most of the municipalities in my electorate. How can they administer these regulations? Is the government providing a native vegetation retention regulation that cannot be administered and that will be a cost burden on the municipalities?

Another municipality quoted parts of a letter from the VFF. It says: PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1383

The Victorian Farmers Federation and the overwhelming majority of our members support the general principle of encouraging the retention of native vegetation on private land. What is in dispute is the way in which this objective is to be achieved. Those are the concerns of people in my electorate. I suggest that if the government had a more cooperative approach it would get a more responsive attitude from country people to the retention and control of native vegetation across country Victoria. So far as I am concerned, that is the bottom line. The regulation must be rejected for the reasons I have enunciated. The opposition would cooperate. I would certainly cooperate with appropriate regulations if I were able to present it to the people of my electorate, primary producers, municipalities and individuals. The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is strongly supported by myself and the National Party and I believe that is the way we should go. I look forward to the government not reintroducing the same regulation but cooperating with people. If the government looks to that cooperation with all members of Parliament we will have something that is supported by country people and which will be to the advantage of the State as a whole. I trust the Premier will respond to the strong comments that have been made by opposition members in this and another place opposing the regulations in their current form.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - I wish to speak briefly on the motion the Premier described as being one of the most important motions to come before Parliament. I agree with her description of it but I note that she is here and that the government Whip, the Deputy Speaker, the former Premier and the honourable member for Reservoir are here. That is the sole number of government members in the House. The argument from the Minister for Conservation and Environment seemed to be that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition had something to do with the greenhouse effect and all sorts of emissions. He did not review the brown coal burning program of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria which accounts for up to 50 per cent of emissions in Victoria, far more than all the land clearing in Victoria in the past few years. Not satisfied with being the man who shoots Skippy in the slaughter of 17 000 kangaroos, he is now burning Christmas trees as well. Recently while fire restrictions were still in place in region 8, which encompasses my electorate, I noticed a column of smoke above French Island which caused everybody in the district to ring up and say, "Is there a major fire in the south?" It turned out to be the Department of Conservation and Environment having a massive bum-off of trees on French Island as part of a pine tree eradication program. Apparently they are too lazy to chop them down and use the logs for something sensible. They found it more effective to incinerate the lot. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1384 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Are we talking about degraded farmland, neglected by evil, wicked farmers? This is a former prison farm run by the State. It was a pine tree area that was being burnt by the Department of Conservation and Environment with apparently the authority and blessing of the Minister, who then stands up and has the temerity to say farmers who object to the idiot provisions of Planning Amendment SS are somehow guilty of environmental vandalism.

Honourable members are actually debating the merits of Planning Amendment 55 and the amendments which suggest that having sensible tree and other clearance controls is a desirable feature. The area I represent has far more effective controls under existing rules than Planning Amendment 55 will ever provide.

I heard my neighbour, the honourable member for Doveton - who was the Treasurer and is now the Secretary of the Cabinet - speak on this matter but I do not think there would be ten native trees left in his electorate. They have cleared them all. It is now the rolling hills of brick veneer.

The government is not talking about increased rates of tree planting programs, positive programs and action or cooperative schemes. It is now talking about introducing planning controls which - and I accept the argument put by members of the coalition - invite you to have a friendly bureaucrat for every farm. Every farm will have one. There will be a bureaucrat-lead recovery.

You want to trim a tree? Get a permit! Under existing controls in the Shire of Sherbrooke, if you want to remove an overgrown cyprus hedge you have to make a planning application for the removal of each tree and you have to make a planning fee payment in respect of each tree in the hedge. You mayor may not get permission to remove it and mayor may not be able to appeal, depending on how appropriate the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is. That is not encompassed by Planning Amendment 55 because cypress hedges are not native trees.

The planning scheme provides that if it is barley grass or if you are stupid enough to plant a eucalypt tree and you want to remove it, lop it or change it, you have to get a permit. The amendment does not refer to existing native vegetation. It talks about native vegetation, and where a person plants a tree that can be defined as native vegetation it seems to be encompassed within the protocol of the amendment.

Let me say to my friends in the National Party and the coalition - there is worse to come. This is but the first chapter in the idiocy of the socialist government because the Shire of Sherbrooke in my electorate is proposing a local law that will mean that people must register all the animals on their property. You must lock up the cats after 5 o'clock at night. You have to register how many cows, sheep and horses are on your property, and at any time your friendly municipal bureaucrat will tell you how many horses you may have in a paddock and how many grazing days or hours are allowed.

Ms Kirner - Do we have to have this nonsense? PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1385

Mr MACLELLAN - I take up the interjection of the Premier, because it perfectly describes Planning Amendment SS. The answer to the question, ''Do we have to have this nonsense?" is no. Why are we debating it here? They will be throwing it out in another place. All I can say is thank goodness we are getting rid of the stupid excesses of Planning Amendment SS. I do not object to sensible controls such as those we have had over many years in my electorate, but I strongly object to the madness of telling someone they have to have a permit to move animals from one side of the road to another. That is what Planning Amendment S5 provides. If there is native vegetation on the roadside you are. not allowed to move sheep or cattle from one paddock to another crossing a government road without a permit. That is the sort of nonsense provided in Planning AmendmentSS that the coalition says goes too far. Most of the debate has been about trees and I know from the government point of view that trees are important - they are sexy and able to harvest votes. The government went through a lot of nonsense - not this government but the former government because the Premier pretends that hers is a new government, so I will say the former corrupt government led by the former Premier, and I shall leave to the imagination which government I am referring to - and announced a massive tree-planting program. The only problem was that it was totally bogus and was overtaken by an equally bogus promise of its Federal colleagues when the Prime Minister announced, with the planting of one tree at the juncture of the Darling River and the River Murray on a most expensive occasion when Hazel was shown on television planting a tree, that we were going to plant a billion trees. Somebody worked out that if we planted trees night and day we still could not plant that number. The numbers did not add up. The government then said, "Yes, we are talking about the seeds that fallout of the trees as well" . Then the argument started in Victoria about whether pine trees would be included in the tree numbering program and whether they were part of the game the government was playing in trying to harvest a few votes for an election campaign. Under this program we find the strident nationalism of planting native vegetation as opposed to exotic trees. Apparently, if the honourable member for Gippsland East cut down every tree on his property it would not matter under Planning Amendment SS so long as it was not native vegetation. According to Planning Amendment SS there will be no greenhouse effect from pine trees being burned on French Island by the Department of Conservation and Environment, but if it is a eucalyptus tree, a tree of Australian origin, my word, vegetation controls will be exercised. There is an exotic mix of saying that if a tree comes from South Africa it is all right to cut it down or burn it or anything you like but you cannot touch a native tree.

That produces a whole range of questions that are applicable in areas around the metropolitan area where there have been vast changes in the environment because of the planting of exotic trees. I am delighted by the fact that an early map of our farm shows open grassland because so as long as native grass does not get back in the Planning Amendment SS will not apply to our property, but it might apply to us later if we move animals from one paddock to another. We would then have to have a permit to move a PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1386 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 17 April 1991

few sheep from the gate on one side of the property to the gate on the other side and the Premier would say that is because the last barley grass stalk might be there. The amendment does not say anything about endangered or vulnerable vegetation. It does not say that it applies to vegetation that is precious, vulnerable or likely to be adversely affected.

This takes the cake with the story about the killjoy from the Department of Conservation and Environment, which needs to be recorded in Hansard because the activities of that killjoy will go down in history. The eighth channel challenge story begins when the Minister for Community Services was invited to give it a blessing. The channel challenge is a swimming event from San Remo to Newhaven and contestants run back over the bridge and finish up outside the pub. However, on the morning of the eighth channel challenge, the killjoy from the department said, 11After they swim across, they cannot cross the beach". The organisers said, 'What do you mean, they have come across the beach for the past eight years". The killjoy said he would not have competitors trampling on the marram grass. He said they would have to go a different way. He did not say which way, and did not produce a large roll of second-hand carpet that the organisers could put out over the grass. He was not helpful. He said the channel challenge would have to be cancelled because he would not let contestants run across the marram grass.

Local ingenuity solved the problem. The organisers got a truckload of sand - which they probably dug out with a front-end loader from the same beach if the truth were known, but I will leave that to people's imagination - and put that truckload of sand over the regular bitumen at the Phillip Island beach so that the swimmers came out of the water, went over the edge, up the sand, over the rocks, around the beach to the bitumen and up on to the road to run over the bridge, thus completing the channel challenge. The only problem was that the measurement for this year's event was different from the measurements of the previous seven events because killjoy decided that they would not be allowed to run up the path of the beach this year.

How pathetic! Was his concern for the global greenhouse effect? Is that what he was protecting when he said that the marram grass must not be stood upon by those Australian feet? Was he suggesting that it does not matter what the SEC chums out in the Latrobe Valley - the honourable member for Morwell would be the first to tell us that we ought to dig out more historic coal and burn it in an SEC publicly owned, union-pledged generator, because it does not matter what we churn out into the atmosphere and what effect it has on the greenhouse effect, so long as we do not privatise our socialist system and our public utilities, and pledge that we will not do so. We can do whatever we like if that pledge is made.

But if a farmer in East Gippsland wants to cut down a tree for firewood after 1996, he is in trouble. I do not know what will happen to the Coonara Trendies in my electorate; they will freeze to death after 1996 because they are not going to be allowed to cut firewood, for heaven's sake; Planning Amendment SS says sot After 1996 - no firewood exemptions. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1387

I can tell you I have got them all over my electorate. They are back into the sort of Bavarian-Gothic-mudbrick-Hansel and Gretel houses with soft beds, government jobs and Coonaras and they are out there every weekend with the zip saw - in someone else's paddock I might add - going "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" and Hansel and Gretel are happy ever after in their mudbrick house. I have to say that this is a perfect example of bullshit baffling brains -- Mr NORRIS (Dandenong) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Berwick has just made a remark that certainly honourable members on this side of the House find offensive. Many schoolchildren are in the public gallery with their parents and I am sure they find the word offensive, and I ask him to withdraw it. The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word used. Mr MACLELLAN - I withdraw the inappropriate word used, Mr Speaker, and I replace it with IICOW dung". Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, it would perhaps get over the problem if the honourable member would "Excreta tauri cerebrum vincit"; in other words - put it in Latin. It might not be as offensive! The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. Mr MACLELLAN - The arguments put by the government have been Jesuitical in their sophistry. They have attempted to say that this is a greenhouse measure so "vote for us". They say it is a caring measure but what they are really saying is, "We stitched up our backyard and all the native vegetation that we are interested in; now we want to preserve all the native vegetation in the areas that you are interested in" so they are saying to the farmers, "You will keep what you have got whether you like it or not." What the coalition is saying with such enthusiasm is that there ought to be some vegetation controls. What we have given priority to in our consideration is tree controls and we say there are good and sensible reasons for having some controls on the total clearance of trees. That could then, perhaps, be the bridge between both sides. Unfortunately, the regulation proposes to go further than that. It is hard to have a loving thought for barley grass. It is all over the place. It is not endangered; it is not welcome; it is not productive. It has been replaced on farm after farm by better species because better species lead to productivity, jobs, higher standards of living and everything that we hold dear and precious and is held so by people who look after the land. The replacement of these trees has the incidental effect of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, fixing it and actually helping the greenhouse effect. The plainness of the intention of the government is so obvious. It hopes to grab a few unthinking conservation votes, but I think it misjudged the conservationists to start off with. The conservation movement is too smart to be taken in by Planning Amendment SS and the government, and the opposition ought to use the amendment moved by the PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1388 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Leader of the Opposition as a vehicle for expressing a mutual view that there is a need for controls. The government should respect the ownership of freehold land; it should certainly respect the management skills that farmers have brought to their land over so many years, and it should try to be positive and cooperative, assisting people in retaining native vegetation rather than trying to do it vlith a threat.

The cooperative way is the better way than the concept of satellite pictures to show or not show that 90 per cent of the trees have been removed. Most of the replacement trees are supposed to be replaced by other species that take greenhouse gases and fix them and what I would have to say is that the eucalyptus cover of pre-white settlement was somehow more greenhouse-friendly than the cover that is there now. As the honourable member for Gippsland East established to everybody's satisfaction there are crops which are not natural to Australia which take out more carbon from the atmosphere than any mature forest will ever do. The honourable member also made the cogent point that while we continue to burn brown coal in vast quantities to generate electricity and while we use electricity in vast quantities we are not really responsibly reacting to the greenhouse problem, and that is an educative problem that has to be faced.

It is a cop-out to say, 'We have done our bit because we have told the farmers that they have got to keep the native vegetation". The real education that has to be given is on the challenge of how to price and use our electricity wisely; and Mr Halfpenny and others - some of whom are still surviving in the government ranks - will have to go to their graves with it on their consciences that they opposed the building of the Newport power station. That power station was fuelled by natural gas, which emits about one fifteenth of the greenhouse gases that our brown coal station emits, yet it was opposed by Mr Halfpenny. At one stage it was passed by the Labor Party but it was ultimately opposed, and we ended up with half a gas-fired power station down near the Westgate Bridge and the other half at Jeeralang. Both of them are inefficient and now we are stuck in the mess of an enormous increase in the generation capacity in the Latrobe Valley, knowing that it goes against every greenhouse target that has been set internationally, and that if we go ahead and complete the SEC building program in the Latrobe Valley we will increase the emission of greenhouse gases in this State by a factor that far exceeds anything represented by Planning Amendment SS.

If we are serious we need the cooperation and willingness of the local communities around our State to work to preserve the remaining native plants and species. Where we know of them being endangered, we should take action to preserve them from their endangeredness, whether that is early or at the last moment.

What we cannot do is expect farmers and farming to survive as we know it today, and as we know it needs to be in future years, if we ask them to preserve everything. They will not survive with a bureaucracy-led recovery where every farmer has to go to every PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1389

bureaucrat to ask for a permit to move his or her sheep or stock, or for a permit to trim a tree or plough a paddock or run the farm. We cannot ask them to obtain a permit in the Shire of Sherbrooke to own animals or expect them to register the animals and we cannot state that on certain days the animals may be grazed in paddocks and state for how long they may have them on the property. If we do this they become not farmers in the sense that we have known them but perhaps worse slaves than those who work on the State farms in Rumania where they are told how many animals they can have, when to sow and when to reap, and they are told when to market, when to work and when not to. The answer is production becomes impossible and the community goes into a sharpened permanent decline. That is not a recipe the coalition recommends to our community. We join with the government in saying one thing: yes, there is a need for controls, especially in regard to trees, but they have to be sensible controls. They have to be on a cooperative basis with the owners of private land. They have to recognise the responsibilities and the rights of the owners of private land and it is ridiculous to use a mechanism like this one, cooked up by some left-wing trendy appointed by the government to a panel under a planning scheme. To allow them to write government policy or to write Parliament policy or the community policy is absolutely ridiculous. This is not the result of the independent umpire. This is not the result of the careful consultations. This is the result of the left-wing ideologists being allowed too long a leash. It is time this Premier brought some of her socialist left friends under control so they produce sensible rulings that take account of realities. The realities are far more important to our community than which Minister is selected for which seat and who gets pre-selection for what, yet this has become - and the farming community and the people of Victoria will become the victims under Planning Amendment SS - the subject of manoeuvring within the government party. Having solved most of those problems all the government needs to do in sheer decency is to get rid of the honourable member for Essendon and give the present Minister for Planning and Housing endorsement for the seat of Essendon. It seems I have offered them a solution to all their problems! They have a lay preacher on one side who, so far as Iknow-- The SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member relate his remarks to the question before the Chair. Mr MACLELLAN - They have one on the other side who could well contemplate a career in other things; they have a seat swinging. The SPEAKER - Order! On the question before the Chair. Mr MACLELLAN - It may be that the seat has little appeal or vegetation -­ The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member wishes to defy the Chair I will not hear him further. I ask him to relate his remarks to the matter before the Chair. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1390 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 Apri11991

Mr MACLELLAN - I do not know how much native vegetation exists in Essendon but my observations of Essendon Airport and the land immediately north and north-east of it, called the escarpment area, where I was six weeks ago, show me there is a shortage of trees in that area, and especially native trees, but there are intrusions of box thorn and certainly large areas of native grasses. Those native grasses would be protected under Planning Amendment SS. According to the opposition's amendment, the owners of the land ought to be consulted and work in a cooperative way if those grasses are precious or endangered. Part of the protection of our native vegetation in our endangered species of grasses, if any, is the political representation those areas receive.

I know you have said, Mr Speaker, that it would be offensive of me to challenge your ruling in any sense by referring to who ought, or who mayor may not represent the area of grassland to the immediate north-east of Essendon Airport. It could be in more caring hands if the Minister for Planning and Housing had responsibility for it because he is the Minister for planning. He has responsibility for Planning Amendment SS. After all, it has been introduced under the planning legislation. H he were there as the honourable member for Essendon, with the grasslands in his area and his responsibilities under Planning Amendment SS, we would have an honest representative of those grasslands and of that area and of the people who live there, and we would not have the sort of person we now have representing that area.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) - I wish to make a brief contribution in opposition to the native vegetation retention regulations and to support my colleagues on this side of the House in their opposition to Planning Amendment SS. I do so on a number of grounds. Those regulations are bureaucratic, socialistic and I oppose them largely because they are counterproductive. It is fair to say that all on this side of the House support reasonable conservation and care for the environment. We are concerned about the ozone layer and the greenhouse effects, and about preserving our flora and fauna. Those who have been involved in the farming industry, as I have for most of my life, operate on the principle that we leave the land in a much better condition than it was when we found it. Generally speaking, citizens of Victoria operate on exactly the same principle because we aim to leave the State in a much better state than it was when we found it.

It is very easy to blame the farming community and the people who currently own the private land on which the native vegetation is found for some of our problems. Let us not forget it is not so long ago - perhaps 30, 40 or 50 years - that it was compulsory to dear a given area of land for settlers to retain their land. It is all very fine with our historical perspective to criticise what happened years ago but let us not forget it was not only with the approval of governments but also in many ways initiated and compelled by governments to dear the amount of land we did - and for very good economic reasons - in those days. The ball game has changed and we need to take account of that. PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1391

There is no argument about the problem we face. It is a problem of land degradation because of excessive clearing of the land. We have massive salinity and soil erosion problems. I do not argue about that. However, what the opposition argues about is what we need to do to overcome those problems. As the honourable member for Gippsland East said during his very valuable contribution, we need to get in perspective the effect of protecting native vegetation as opposed to all the other things we are doing in a modern society to cause problems to the greenhouse effect.

I suggest there are two ways to try to overcome those problems. Firstly, as is proposed by this side, we need a cooperative approach in which the farming community and those involved in the forestry industry can cooperate and work with the government. In recent years there has been significant progress in that direction whereby the community accepts the need to be careful of our environment and to observe reasonable guidelines of care for the various things we are doing on our farming land.

The other approach is the one that is advocated by the government; namely, one of centralised control as is epitomised in Planning Amendment SS. Those regulations intrude on the traditional rights of those owning freehold land. The regulations would apply to all vegetation indigenous to Victoria - to trees, shrubs, grasses and herbs. That would lead to a ridiculous situation in which, after 1996, one would need a permit to move cattle from one side of the road to the other or to move them down a government road.

One will need a permit to cut firewood or to clear more than 10 hectares or to cultivate land unless there is an approved farm plan. As honourable members have said during the debate, an approved farm plan would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Generally speaking, farmers have an overall plan of development and do not need the assistance of bureaucrats - who have very little first-hand knowledge of farming and forestry practices - to approve that plan for them. What do those people know about farming and forestry? They do not know much about them at all. Many of them are failed farmers and many of them have no experience in these areas. The farming community is doing a very responsible and worthwhile job in accepting its responsibilities to look after the environment.

As the honourable member for Gippsland East pointed out in his contribution to the debate, the problem is really not with our farming community or in the forestry areas. Although it might give city people a warm inner glow to think that they are doing something about protecting the environment by supporting these amendments, the fact is that it is a very small contribution compared with the problems of generating electricity, driving motor cars around and using public transport.

In the centralised city at present we are using huge amounts of energy to keep people warm, to move them around and so on. That is having a very deleterious effect on the ozone layer and creating the problems that we are trying to avoid through these sorts of regulations. The penalties will be borne by the farming community. The implementation of these regulations represents no cost to the people living in the metropolitan area; they PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1392 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

can still enjoy their warmth, their cooling and their modes of transport. It is the farming community that will have to bear the brunt of these proposed controls. I have heard nothing during the whole debate about the effect these controls will have from a global point of view. As the honourable member for Gippsland East pointed out - and I believe the figures are fairly accurate - it is like paying $1 off Victoria's debt of $32 000 million; that is about the proportion of the contribution that these native vegetation controls would have on preserving our environment in comparison with all the other things we are doing to destroy the environment. The honourable member for Berwick pointed out that forests are being burned because that is the cheapest and most effective way to do the job. I accept that there must be control of land clearing. We cannot go on forever clearing land. The figures that have been talked about show that there is certainly some debate about how much land is being cleared each year. The government is claiming that it is something like 15 ()()() hectares a year. I believe it is more accurate to put the figure at approximately 8000 or 9000 hectares a year. The trend is clear: there is a reduction in the amount of land that is cleared each year. It needs to be pointed out that most farmers are responsible and do care for the environment. Those who are clearing additional areas of land and those who have perhaps done some clearing that would not have been done in better times have been forced into it by economic circumstances. One aspect of these planning amendments that concerns me is that there is absolutely no compensation to the farming community that is being denied its traditional right to clear, cultivate and use its resources for forestry purposes. That is a cop-out by the rest of the community, who believe they can do something about protecting the environment when it is costing them absolutely nothing to do it. As I said, there is no argument about the objective of what we are trying to do - protect the environment. We are arguing about the method of achieving it. These proposed amendments have been brought in by the back door. It is a sneaky approach. It is an attempt to bypass Parliament and to avoid a debate on these proposed controls. For that reason alone the Premier's motion should be opposed so that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the amendments. As the honourable member for Berwick pointed out, the amount of carbon dioxide produced through power generation in the Latrobe Valley is many times greater than anything we might do by clearing additional areas of forest and farmland. We need to remember that the clearing of forests and farmland for productive crops adds to our economic activity in this State. It is a renewable resource; it is not as if we are clearing it forever. Farmland is being cleared to grow crops which, in many cases, use more carbon dioxide than the scrub that was there in the first place. Therefore, we need to appreciate that there is a renewable resource and that economic activity is generated. That is quite different from clearing land to build houses. Apparently it is no problem to clear PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1393

additional areas of land on which to build houses, which generates no economic activity, but it is a problem to clear land for farming or forestry purposes which does generate ongoing economic activity. The Victorian Farmers Federation is strongly opposed to these planning amendments. Ail the representations that I have received in my electorate express strong opposition to the planning amendments. Uke the honourable member for Murray Valley, I have not received one representation in support of them. I have heard from many people who think, as I do, that there should be some sensible controls, but that this is not the way to achieve them. Therefore, I oppose the motion and have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition because I believe that is a much better way of achieving the objectives, with which we all agree, rather than the bureaucratic, socialist way of trying to achieve it with this Planning Amendment SS. Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and oppose the motion moved by the Premier. From the outset, I must declare a vested interest. I am a member of the Society for Growing Native Plants and my hobby is growing native trees and other vegetation to plant on my own small piece of land. What I find very offensive about this whole exercise is the fact that it is counterproductive. The Premier has no idea of the ill will that she has generated in country Victoria for herself and the government. That may not be a worry in political terms, but it is and should be a worry to the Premier that, having lost the goodwill of the farmers, she has lost all the cooperation that has been generated over the past ten or fifteen years. There is no doubt, as other honourable members have remarked, that farmers made some mistakes in years gone by. The very law of the land in the past required farmers to clear land so they could obtain their permits to purchase or lease the land. Farmers have been aware of the mistakes of the past and have made great strides in carrying out restorative work by planting trees and creating shelter belts on their land. Through this planning scheme amendment the Premier and the government have undone all the good that has been done, and the assistance of people whom we should be encouraging to cooperate in repairing some of the damage of the past and recovering or restoring some of the vegetation has now been lost. The Premier and the government have no idea of the way that farmers think and act. It takes a lot of money these days to purchase a farm, and it is often one or two generations work to obtain a clear title. Having gone through all that hard work and finally obtaining clear title to the land, farmers find it very offensive to then have some outsider come along and say what they can and cannot do with their land. I admit there are cases where the State must take precedence over private land, where the needs of many must override the rights of a few. But what I find most offensive about the government's argument that we must protect native vegetation on private land to which people have a PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

1394 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 17 April 1991

dear title, is the suggested need, for the public good, to prevent the landowners from doing with the land as they wish. If the regulation prevents people from doing what they wish with their land for the public good, the public must pay and landowners should be compensated. Under other Acts of Parliament such as the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act provision has been made for compensation. But no effort has been made in this case to provide for compensation. It is no different from a government department compulsorily acquiring a piece of land to construct a road. The land is taken from the owner and the owner is compensated. Unless the government considers compensation in this case, the system it proposes is doomed to fail. The basis of the government's argument has been twofold. Firstly, it has suggested that by protecting native vegetation on private land it will somehow overcome the greenhouse effect theory. I remind the House that it is a theory. It has not been proven. Frankly, I am sceptical about the greenhouse theory. I may open myself up for criticism on this point but I suggest the greenhouse theory is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

The government's second point is that the regulation protects native species of plants and animals. But the government has admitted that, if any special native plants are growing on private land or if there are any specific animal habitats on private land, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act can be applied. Unfortunately that is not being done. Instead this draconian measure has been introduced. Any argument suggesting that Planning Amendment 55 will save native plants and animals is wrong. The government is losing all willingness to cooperate from the farming community, and cooperation is the name of the game. Members of the government referred to consultation and criticised the opposition for its lack of consultation. I suggest farmers are not very good in dealing with the consultative process. They dislike appearing before panels and giving evidence. That is a great trial for many farmers. Often they will not appear to put forward their arguments, but that does not mean farmers do not have an opinion. They have strong opinions but often find it difficult to express them in public forums.

The way the government has introduced the amendment has disturbed me. I do not understand how Planning Amendment SS will achieve its objectives. It will not protect our native vegetation on private land to the degree the government would like. It would be better for the government to use schemes such as LandCare and to consult with farmers and encourage them to look after their land and retain native vegetation. If there are any areas where significant species of flora and fauna exist the objectives could be achieved by consultation.

I am disturbed about the way the government has introduced the regulation. I believe in my heart and with my experience that it will not achieve the objectives and will be counterproductive. The State will be all the poorer as a result. PROTECTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1395

Ms KIRNER (premier) - I thank honourable members for participating in this debate. This is one of the most important issues to be debated in the House and I am pleased so many honourable members participated. The debate emphasised the importance of planning controls for native vegetation. No-one suggested that the protection of native vegetation was not an important issue. No-one suggested the government should continue only with what it is currently doing. However I was disappointed with some opposition members who failed to acknowledge accurately that a number of exemptions in the amendment allow day-to-day activities to continue if farmers want to pursue them. Mr J. F. McGrath - For five years! Ms KIRNER - Honourable members will be aware it is possible to review these regulations. I was disappointed with the failure of opposition speakers to spell out what authority would be imposed if these planning controls were replaced. Although there were more than ten opposition speakers in the debate, not one spelt out what would be included in the new Act. Several times in the debate the opposition was asked whether it agreed with the South Australian legislation, but no answer was forthcoming. The opposition suggested that the principles of the regulation were all right but did not spell out what would be included in the replacement Act. I look forward to seeing the provisions of the opposition's Act because, according to the amendment, it believes Planning Amendment SS does not go far enough in protecting native vegetation in three areas; firstly, in recognising freehold land ownership; secondly, regional diversity; and, thirdly, community cooperation in its application. The opposition failed to mention the issues involved in land degradation. There was mention of biodiversity but not regional diversity. There was no mention of the impact of water on the ground water table. There was no mention of what will be done for endangered species. An Act that deals only with the three issues referred to in the reasoned amendment would be inappropriate. I should have been interested in hearing either in this place or the other place what the opposition proposes as a substitute for such controls. It is incumbent on the opposition to spell out what it wants in a new Act. The opposition has had seventeen months to participate in consultation and debate but it cannot provide even an outline of an Act. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition referred to legislation but the debate added nothing to the government's understanding of such proposed legislation. The only clue we were given about what might be in the Act is what was said by the opposition in its discussions with conservation groups. As I understand it there were two proposals. The first was that a dual system would be included in the Act. The opposition suggested either a planning control scheme or the Land Protection Council. I was involved in establishing the Land Protection Council and believe it is a good system, but it is not appropriate for determining planning schemes. I have no problem with the land protection regional advisory committees but that suggestion has not been made in this House. PROTECTION OF NA TIVE VEGETATION

1396 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

The second proposal to be included in the Act was that if a fanner was clearing his land, had cleared part of his land, or had previously expressed an intention to clear his land, he would be exempted from any controls on clearing his land. That really makes a farce of what was said today. I have the greatest respect for the standing and conservation interest of the honourable members for Syndal and Swan Hill, but to argue against these planning controls without putting forward an alternative is further evidence that the coalition has no agreed policy on the environment.

The truth is there is fundamental disagreement on the opposition benches on environmental issues, not about what should be thrown out --

Mr Kennett - How do you know?

Ms KIRNER - Listen and you will find out. There is fundamental disagreement: 30 to 32 in the party room on this issue. There is fundamental disagreement about what should be done, but no fundamental disagreement about what should be knocked out - that is easy. If the opposition revokes the amendment there is no future for native vegetation.

I look forward to seeing legislation that is agreed between all parties and the conservation movement and farming community. That would be an achievement, but I am amazed that the opposition cannot introduce a serious alternative to the government's proposal. Therefore, it is not possible for the government to accept the amendment. The planning scheme control has been through a seventeen-month process of proper consultation by an independent panel. The opposition could have participated over that period, but it did not and during that seventeen-month period it still has not developed an alternative policy.

I therefore ask the House to endorse the amendment to the planning control scheme.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Premier has moved:

lbat this House endorses the application of Planning Amendment 55 - State Section Planning Schemes to protect native vegetation in Victoria.

The Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment in the following terms:

lbat all the words after "House" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "supports the protection of native vegetation in Victoria by a legislative system which recognises freehold land ownership, regional diversity and community cooperation in its application" .

The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion. House divided on omission (Members in favour vote No): PROTECfION OF NATIVE VEGETATION

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1397

Ayes, 45 Andrianopoulos, Mr Hill, Mrs Rowe,Mr Baker, Mr Hirsh,Mrs Sandon,Mr Barker,Mrs Jolly,Mr Seitz, Mr Batchelor, Mr Kennan,Mr Sercombe, Mr Cain,Mr Kennedy,Mr Setches, Mrs Cole,Mr Kimer,Ms Sheehan, Mr AJ. Crabb,Mr Leighton, Mr Sheehan, Mr F.P. Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Shell, Mr Dollis, Mr (Teller) McDonald, Mr Simmonds, Mr Ernst,Mr Mathews,Mr Spyker,Mr Fordham,Mr Micallef, Mr Thomson, Mr (Teller) Garbutt, Mrs Noms, Mr Trezise,Mr Gavin, Mr Pope,Mr Vaughan, Or Hamilton, Mr Ray,Mrs Walsh,Mr Harrowfield, Mr Roper,Mr WUson,Mrs

Noes,34 Austin, Mr John,Mr Perton,Mr Btldstien, Mr Kennett,Mr Pescott, Mr Clark, Mr (Teller) Leigh,Mr Reynolds, Mr Coleman,Mr Ueberman, Mr Richardson,Mr Delzoppo, Mr McGrath, Mr J.F. Smith, Mr E.R. Elder,Mr McGrath, Mr W.D. Steggall. Mr Evans,Mr Maclellan, Mr Tanner, Mr Gude,Mr McNamara, Mr Wade,Mrs Hayward,Mr Maughan,Mr Wallace, Mr (Teller) Heffeman, Mr Napthine, Or Weideman, Mr Honeywood, Mr Perrin,Mr Wells, Or Jasper,Mr Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 45 Andrianopoulos, Mr Hill, Mrs Rowe,Mr Baker,Mr Hirsh,Mrs Sandon,Mr Barker, Mrs Jolly,Mr Seitz,Mr Batchelor, Mr Kennan,Mr Sercombe, Mr Cain,Mr Kennedy,Mr Setches, Mrs Cole, Mr (Teller) Kimer,Ms Sheehan, Mr AJ. Crabb,Mr Leighton, Mr Sheehan, Mr F.P. Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Shell,Mr Dollis, Mr McDonald, Mr Simmonds, Mr Ernst,Mr Mathews,Mr Spyker,Mr Fordham,Mr Micallef, Mr Thomson,Mr Garbutt, Mrs (Teller) Norris,Mr Trezise,Mr Gavin, Mr Pope,Mr Vaughan, Or Hamilton, Mr Ray,Mrs Walsh,Mr Harrowfield, Mr Roper,Mr WUson,Mrs ADJOURNMENT

1398 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

Noes, 36 Austin, Mr Jasper, Mr Perton, Mr (Teller) Bildstien, Mr John,Mr Pescott, Mr Clark,Mr Kennett,Mr Reynolds, Mr Coleman,Mr Leigh, Mr Richardson, Mr Cooper,Mr Lieberman, Mr Smith, Mr E.R Delzoppo, Mr M<.G-ath, Mr J.F. Smith, Mr I.W. Elder,Mr M<.G-ath, Mr W.D. Steggall, Mr Evans,Mr Maclellan, Mr Tanner, Mr Gude,Mr McNamara, Mr Wade,Mrs Hayward,Mr Maughan, Mr (Teller) Wallace,Mr Heffernan, Mr Napthine, Or Weideman, Mr Honeywood, Mr Perrin,Mr Wells, Or Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: That the House do now adjourn. School cleaning contracts Mr HAYWARD (Prahran) - I direct the attention of the Premier, who represents the Minister for Education and Training in this place, to the problems associated with school cleaning. A number of school councils wish to contract out the cleaning of their schools but unfortunately they are prevented from doing so because of an agreement between the government and the Miscellaneous Workers Union. The problem of school cleaning has long been identified as an area in which the Ministry can make major savings. In fact in an earlier report of the Auditor-General he identified the fact that if cleaning of schools and other educational institutions were contracted out savings of up to $50 million could be made. Unfortunately the government refused to accept that finding by the Auditor-General because of its links with the union. The government entered into negotiations with the union on the basis of savings to be achieved through changes in the work practices of the union.

Some savings have been achieved but th~y are not close to the government's original objective and the situation has deteriorated year after year. In fact in the Budget last year the school cleaning costs, which included salaries and no other associated costs for materials, was $81.4 million compared with a budget of $71.9 million - an overrun of 13.2 per cent. The Auditor-General identified the fact that if the agreement with the union was properly implemented additional annual savings of approximately $18 million could be achieved but the government is unable to implement that agreement effectively. More importantly the question of contracting out school cleaning by school councils is clearly the most sensible approach. ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1399

A fonner senior adviser to the Labor government in Victoria has stated that the Ministry of Education and Training is the most inefficient education department in Australia. By improving efficiencies within the central administration he claims cost savings of at least $300 million can be achieved. If the government allowed school councils to contract out school cleaning, additional savings of $50 million could be made. At least $350 million could be saved within the Ministry and all honourable members - members of the government just as much as members of the opposition - know that schools are desperately short of funds.

Sadly, those children most in need. are those getting least assistance, and I refer to those with disabilities or impainnents. The government has introduced an integration policy, but it has not provided the resources to fully implement it. It is absolutely essential that the savings I mentioned be achieved not for the sake of saving money but so the savings can be directed to schools which can then provide assistance to those children with disabilities or impairments. It is essential that the government allows school councils the freedom of contracting out school cleaning services. The problem is simply an agreement between the government and the relevant union. Country school bus services Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I direct to the attention of the Treasurer, who is at the table, problems becoming evident in the stringent policy the government is imposing on school bus services in country Victoria, and I ask him to pass on my remarks to the Minister for Education and Training in the other place.

I state at the outset that I understand the attitude taken by the government in reviewing school bus operations and ensuring that the most efficient service is provided. However, no sensitivity is being shown in many cases where changes are being instituted. Problems have developed in the electorate I represent where the number of school bus runs has been reduced, to the detriment of students using those services. The distance travelled by buses has been reduced and parents are being forced to drive their children long distances to catch their buses. At the behest of previous governments and this government, a large number of small country schools have been closed. on the basis that school buses would be available to take students to the larger centres.

I shall quote one example which highlights the insensitivity of changes being imposed. by Ministry and V/Line officers. I refer to the case of Mr and Mrs Greer, who came to my electorate office on Monday. They told me about changes to the bus service to Whorouly Primary School to begin at the commencement of the second term. The service is being reduced and Mr and Mrs Greer must transport their five-year-old son 4.5 kilometres to catch the school bus, which amounts to 9 kilometres a trip and 18 kilometres a day.

The difficulty is that Mr Greer works away from the home and Mrs Greer has twelve-month-old twins to look after. She also suffers from cerebral palsy and does not have a driver's licence. They will have difficulty in getting their child to the bus stop, and that is a typical example of the problems caused by the changes being made. ADJOURNMENT

1400 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

I ask the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Education and Training to use more sensitivity in the approach being adopted. I particularly refer to the problem being faced by Mr and Mrs Greer. I want the original bus service to Whorouly Primary School reinstated. Changes are being made on short notice and in the middle of the school year. I trust the Minister will make changes to take account of the problems created for country people during these difficult times.

VlLine land in Morwell Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport negotiations between V/Line and the City of Morwell about the lease for land known as Lot No. 79, which is 174 metres long and 9.5 metres wide.

The council has been negotiating with V/Line for some time to reach an acceptable value for the lease of the land. V/Line has argued a commercial value should be set on the lease, despite the fact that the council has no intention of doing anything with the narrow strip other than using it as part of its beautification program in an effort to create better traffic flow along Commercial Road in Morwell.

The Latrobe Valley community is aware of the tremendous improvements that have taken place on V/Line land. Such land used to be distinguished by broken fences and rubbish dumps, but, generally speaking, the land has been improved. The policy of V /Line that a commercial value be set on this narrow strip of land is unfortunate because the council wants it only as part of its beautification program.

The council already spends more money on beautifying railway land owned by V/Line than is being asked for the lease. The council, in conjunction with the Latrobe Regional Commission, is endeavouring to tidy up the town and it spends $5000 a year on improving the general appearance of the town. The council should be commended for that, and the community recognises the improvements that have taken place.

The current argument over a sInall strip of land is petty; V /Line appears to have dug in its heels and has not come to the party. An opportunity exists for the council and that government bureaucracy to get together and make a general improvement for the benefit of the community. V/Line would also gain some benefit because of the improved image that its property would have in the central heart of Morwell township. I ask the Minister if he could investigate this dispute and see if a reasonable outcome can be achieved that will be of benefit to all of the people in the town.

It will be of benefit to the aty of Morwell in endeavouring to complete its plans for the Commercial Road shopping centre in Morwell and it will also be of benefit to V/Line because its property will look better than it currently does.

This is an important matter and I think it is one that is symptomatic of the sort of cooperation that can take place and has taken place, and in this particular instance should take place. I hope the Minister can facilitate a satisfactory outcome. ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1401

Loans to water boards Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) - I raise a matter with the Minister for Conservation and Environment who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber. It concerns the system for financing loans to water boards. The water industry management division has written to some water boards and municipal authorities throughout the State explaining the new system that is to operate in relation to government loans. It is expected that by 30 June 1992 all of those loans will be converted to private loans.

The strange twist in this whole situation is that on 11 December Mr Peter Sheehan, the director of the water industry management division, wrote to the Donald Water Board informing it that the interest rate it was to pay backdated to 1 July 1990 was to be 13.39 per cent instead of the interest rate it had been paying of 11.75 per cent.

The Shire of A voca has also received similar information from Mr Sheehan and it now finds that it has to borrow privately. The interest rate at which it is able to borrow is 12.9 per cent. I should like an explanation of this matter from the Minister for Conservation and Environment, or whoever is handling this on behalf of the Minister.

To write to the water boards and say that their interest rates are going up and then to put them just slightly above the rate at which they can borrow privately from a bank means that arguments put to councillors by council officers are blown out of the water. It is being done in response to a situation that has existed for only a short period.

A total of $88 million has been negotiated from government loans to private loans and another $93 million is currently being negotiated, making a total of $181 million - a substantial figure.

The letter received by the Shire of Avoca was written on 11 April and received on 15 April; that is when it was told that it had to have its affairs in order and its proposition back on the table in Melbourne by 26 April, the day after Anzac Day. It had only about seven days in which to arrange for a loan and then have a council meeting to discuss all these matters.

That shows a lack of understanding by the Labor government, the Minister and the Department of Conservation and Environment of the way in which country areas operate, particularly water boards, and in this case water boards and/or municipalities. I ask the Minister what the justification for this move is and what the destination of the $181 million will be. State Electricity Commission Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development in another place, which I direct to the Treasurer, concerning the State Electricity Commission (SEC) in the Keilor area. I ask the Minister to look at this situation where it has not been possible to provide power to building sites. ADJOURNMENT

1402 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

There was a slight hiccup in starting two new schools in my electorate but after discussions with various Ministers they were approved. The community and I were pleased that the construction of the schools was started. The contractor quickly moved on site and excellent progress was taking place. However he could not get the electricity connected for the builders huts and for the construction work.

The contractor had to put in a huge generator. That kept the neighbourhood awake during the night and was noisy during the day. I ask the Minister to look at that situation and ascertain how matters can be speeded up so that electricity can be connected to the site. This is a big construction site and extra work may be required, but even in normal circumstances in my area, which has an underground service, it seems to take a long time to get connections for builders poles.

Building and construction work is going on at a rapid rate in this growth area but the SEC cannot keep up with it. I ask the Minister to investigate whether the SEC office is understaffed or whether a restructure is needed in the region. I am aware that there was a restructuring going on in the regional area at the time. I do not know whether it was the Sunbury, Sunshine or Essendon depot.

The commission should be able to connect a builder's pole subject to the private contractor completing the correct documentation. If the electrician employed by the builder does not complete the documentation it is not the fault of the SEC workers, and I know of one case where a lot of time was spent in trying to locate the documents because the electrician sent them to Sunshine when they were supposed to go to the Essendon regional office.

There needs to be an extension of the education of electricians who are licensed to carry out the work so that they know to which office to submit the documentation. That is where the fault lies. The contractor has been used to sending papers into Sunshine but with the restructure, because of the growth and development of the area, the services provided from Essendon and Sunshine now include part of the electorate of Keilor.

This problem needs to be addressed and because of the volume of work in that area electrical contractors need to be informed. The problem with the huge compressor at the school construction site caused inconvenience for the surrounding community after it had received the good news that the schools would be built in the area. Arrangements for students in special schools Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Education and Training. I refer to the decision made by the Ministry of Education and Training to advise parents of some 218 children in the Eastern Region who are in special settings that as of June they will no longer have a place in those special schools. The children concerned are more than eighteen years of age and by the nature of their location and placement, they have disabilities. The government has not spelt out what alternative places are available or where these people can go. It has not said what places will be created. ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1403

It is known that the government has been to the technical and further education area - which is Commonwealth funded - and tried to convince people there that positions for some of these people should be created in the T AFE system. Many people will be interested to follow that through. The government has a responsibility to provide additional supported employment programs. If they are not provided, and there are no activities centres and the arrangement with TAFE does not proceed, many of the 218 people to whom I have referred will once again be at home watching television. The development work that has been done through this special education system will be lost. It is an indictment of the government. I am sure those parents involved, who are supporting these people with disabilities and endeavouring to gain some educational opportunity for them, will judge the commitments of the government on the outcome of the decision-making process currently being undertaken. It is incumbent on the government to spell out the alternatives and the opportunities it will provide for the continuing education and enhancement of these people. It must explain what opportunities will be available for people in those special centres who have shown some capacity to undertake additional training to better fit themselves for life. Federal government rural assistance schemes Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I refer the Treasurer to the announcement made by the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy about the national rural assistance package that will provide in the order of $160 million for the 1991-92 financial year. The Minister's documentation refers in part A to assistance in the form of structural adjustments. On a national basis $61.5 million will be provided for that scheme. On my assessment - based on how the money was allocated last year when Victoria received 23 per cent of $49 million, that is, $11.4 million - I anticipate Victoria will receive $14.2 million for structural adjustment. The next area relates to carry-on assistance for farmers in industries and regions experiencing short-term market downturn. That would be particularly applicable to the wheatlands and wool-growing districts of Victoria during this year. Under the Federal Minister's proposal $27.2 million will be provided for that scheme; I anticipate Victoria will get $6 million of that. Victoria must match that amount dollar for dollar. I ask the Treasurer to outline how the government plans to do that. I understand an application has been submitted by Western Australia for an allocation under the scheme but Victoria has not yet made a submission. I ask the Treasurer whether such a submission will be made. I refer to part C, which provides assistance to enable farmers to make an orderly exit from the industry they are in, with $57.5 million available on a national basis. I anticipate - perhaps the Treasurer will correct me if I am wrong - that Victoria will receive $13 million under that scheme. ADJOURNMENT

1404 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

The Federal government's high interest rate policy and the high dollar value it has pursued over the past couple of years have resulted in a decimation of primary industries nationally, and particularly in the State of Victoria. Now the Federal government has come up with a totally inadequate package in an attempt to assist the farming community. Mr Spyker interjected. Mr W. D. McGRATH - We certainly would not have got into the enormous mess we are in except for the high interest rate policy that was applied. That is what put the farmers down the tube, nothing else - certainly not bad management! Mr Spyker - What would you do? Mr W. D. McGRATH - We would certainly correct the high interest rate policy. I ask the Treasurer how he sees this matter unfolding, because the proposals are very important in terms of the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the carry-on subsidies that will provide assistance to the Victorian farming community. Responses Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The honourable member for Morwell in his usual dynamic way raised with me a matter relating to Public Transport Corporation property. I am sure as a former President of the Shire of Morwell and a councillor he has had a significant input into the beautification of Morwell which has helped the people to take pride in the town. The railway line is an important feature of the town as it runs through its centre. The beautification of the land along the line and the properties abutting it is an important matter. While the Public Transport Corporation has a responsibility to gain a reasonable return on its assets, indeed, on their commercial value, I appreciate the work done by the Shire of Morwell in its beautification of the area. At the moment an apparent stand-off is being experienced between the Public Transport Corporation, V JLine, and the Shire of Morwell in respect of a narrow strip of land. I will take up the matter with the Public Transport Corporation to see what arrangement can be arrived at with the Shire of Morwell to ensure that the honourable member is satisfied that the beautification that has been undertaken collectively will continue. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The honourable members for Prahran, Murray Valley and Syndal raised issues for the attention of the Minister for Education and Training in another place and I shall direct those matters ~o his attention. The honourable member for Ripon raised an issue concerning interest rates for water boards and expressed the view that a reconsideration of that matter should be undertaken. I shall seek the views of the Minister for Conservation and Environment on that matter. The honourable member for Keilor raised an issue for the attention of the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development in another place about delays in SEC ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 17 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1405

connections to building sites in his area and the inconvenience that caused to those building a school as part of the government's capital works program. I shall direct that matter to the Minister's attention and ask him to take it up with the State Electricity Commission. The honourable member for Lowan raised with me the announcement made today by Mr Kerin about rural assistance and adjustment schemes. The government is seeking additional information from the Federal Minister on the details of the schemes and how he believes they will apply State by State. As part of the announcement Mr Kerin said he wants to discuss the matter with State Ministers. Mr Coleman interjected.

Mr ROPER - I have to say, in response to the nonsense from the member for Synd~, that when we last met in the National Party Parliamentary room in New South Wales the various State Ministers were keen to achieve as much cooperation as possible. The Federal Minister has asked for further discussions, and obviously we will be involved in them. Based on the information we have so far the government is concerned that there is less emphasis than it would wish on Part A of the scheme. We believe there are many farmers in Victoria and elsewhere who are in significant trouble and who need long-term assistance if they are to survive. Further, the neighbours of those who do not survive might need long-term assistance to take up the farming land that becomes available. On the surface it seems there is not as much emphasis as we would like on Part A, but we will certainly have discussions about that. Substantial emphasis has been placed on Part C. We are concerned that, as it stands, Part C will be effective only if a farmer agrees to move off the property within two years of receiving assistance. If that is where the emphasis lies a substantial number of farmers might have to move off their properties in two years. Part B relates to carry-on financing. I have to agree with officers of the Victorian Farmers Federation, and Don McCaughie in particular, who have expressed concern about Part B - firstly, because it could be used by the banks to avoid their ongoing obligations, leaving the community to bear the major risks associated with this year's crops; and, secondly, for the very practical reason that unless there is a significant increase in wheat prices, and particularly in the early payments for next year's crop, money might be lent to farmers who have no prospect of repaying it, possibly compounding their already perilous cost and debt situation. It does not require much sense to understand that it is not good business for either farmers or the Rural Finance Corporation, which, under the existing Federal scheme, has to bear any of the losses, if the cost of planting crops and commitments on loans are more than the returns for crops. Certainly we are urging the Commonwealth to give emphasis to Part A, which is about long-term assistance and for which the other States are also pushing. We would like to ADJOURNMENT

1406 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 17 April 1991

see changes to Part C so that it becomes more like a social security payment to enable farmers to stay on the land during difficult times without having to sign contracts that might have the effect of moving them off the land. We have submitted detailed material to Mr Kerin, and I shall talk about these matters with my colleagues in the other States. Certainly all of us hope to be talking soon to John Kerin. Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 6.44 p.m. QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1407

Thursday, 18 April 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

AUDITOR-GENERAL Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I direct a question to the Premier. In view of the Auditor-General's criticisms of plans to subject his office to greater control by the imposition of a director-general of Parliamentary services, will the government undertake to guarantee the independence of the Auditor-General? The SPEAKER - Order! I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the report to which he is referring is a report to Parliament and as such is a matter for Parliament to deal with. I suggest he re-phrase his question to the Premier. Mr BROWN - I direct a question to the Premier and I ask: in view of the Auditor-General's concerns and criticism of plans to subject his office to greater control, will the Premier on behalf of her government give an undertaking that she will guarantee the future independence of the role of the office of the Auditor-General? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Not only does the government take the independence of the Auditor-General seriously, but I also took the opportunity of reading the full foreword that the Auditor-General wrote. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition has not yet done that and has relied, as he did yesterday, on an extraordinary series of questions from one of his ideologues in the back room. Today he has asked a question that actually relates in part to Parliament, as you correctly said, Mr Speaker, and is under Parliamentary control.

I shall take the issue of independence in two parts, as well the Leader of the Opposition might have done had he had any shred of real understanding of this issue and any shred of integrity in the way he addresses the Auditor-General's report.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House moved that a Select Committee be set up to address the Parliamentary report. That was to address not only the issue raised by the Auditor-General and the role of the Auditor-General and to whom he should be responsible but also many other issues. I should have thought the Leader of the Opposition in this House might have understood that the Leader of the Opposition in the other House had done that. Mr Stockdale interjected. QUESTIONS WITHour NOTICE

1408 ASSEMBLY ThW'Sday~ 18 April 1991

Ms KIRNER - The honourable member for Brighton should not look so worried. We know he might get the questio;n right even if the Leader of the Opposition has got it wrong. The matter of whether the Auditor-General reports to this Parliament and is under another officer, a senior officer, is of concern to our government but it is a matter that is being addressed by Parliament. Our government's view is that the Auditor-General should remain independent and he should not be subsidiary to anyone. However, do not let us get this wrong and do not let the media get it wrong either, because it is absolutely clear that the government had nothing to do with that recommendation. We will respect the Select Committee of the Parliament, which the Leader of the Opposition does not even seem to know about, and we will not accept the point of view that the Auditor-General is subsidiary to anyone else. The second issue on independence is resources. The changes to the Audit Act, which this government brought in, gave the Auditor-General greater powers to look at effectiveness. We are now considering levels of resources and increased resources will be reflected in the next Budget. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - I direct my question to the Minister for Planning and Housing. Given that the Auditor-General's report has reflected that 40 per cent of the painters employed by the construction group were not given work for the six-month period until 31 December last year, will the Minister advise the House why these staff were not employed in repainting graffiti-ridden railway stations? Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I thank the honourable member for his question. Like many other honourable members opposite he should have been on our question committee today! Honourable members interjecting. Mr McCUTCHEON - The question of the construction group has been before the government over a number of years. Concern has been expressed about its management, work practices and efficiency in costs and finishing projects on time. Earlier this year I released a report that illustrated some of the reactions to the construction group by client departments and agencies. As a result in March a working party was established comprising management, employees and the unions involved. A couple of weeks ago the working party produced a report that expressed solid agreement on tackling issues such as work practices, efficiency, management aspects of the supply of materials, keeping various trades working and producing a result that would lead to projects under the group's control being finished on time and on budget. The construction group has 255 tradesmen and supervisory staff and is responsible for projects amounting to $15 million or $16 million a year. That must be compared with a QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1409

total public sector works program of $450 million. Recent suggestions by the opposition that the group should be dispensed with and the work handed over to private enterprise are misleading because most public sector construction work is already done by private enterprise. Over the past twelve months, as a result of the current economic climate, there has been a falling off in the number of public sector projects available to the group. There has also been sharp competition from private sector contractors. Together those factors have led to a significant reduction in the workload of the construction group. The SPEAKER - Order! There is far too much audible conversation, which is making it difficult for honourable members to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr McCUTCHEON - The government has made a clear decision that the construction group will be set a twelve-month program in which the agreed improvement targets for productivity and the supply of equipment --

The SPEAKER - Order! Again I ask honourable members to remain silent. It is difficult for the honourable member for Warrnambool and other honourable members to hear the reply.

Mr McCUTCHEON - The government has made a clear decision to put the construction group on a program of fixed targets for improvements in its productivity and in finishing projects on time. That program will be monitored and reviewed after six and twelve months. There is also agreement that the size of the group will be reduced so that an appropriate trades balance will be reached. For the next twelve months the group will be set an agreed work program. The group now has stringent targets to meet in improved productivity and in completing its projects on time. The SPEAKER - Order! I have twice appealed to honourable members to remain silent. It is clearly difficult for honourable members on the back bench to hear the Minister's reply. I particularly ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership, and I ask the honourable member for Mornington to remain silent.

Mr McCUTCHEON - It will be hard for the honourable members to show leadership, Mr Speaker. In the instance of the construction group, leadership has been shown.

Mr Stockdale interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have just requested him to show leadership in remaining silent.!f he persists in interjecting when the Minister is attempting to complete his reply and honourable members are genuinely interested in hearing it, I will be forced to deal with him.

Mr McCUTCHEON - The point at issue is that the construction group is now on a new program, with agreed targets to improve its performance and agreed work

77825/91-46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1410 ASSEMBLY Thmsday, 18 April 1991

programs, so that there will be a very different situation concerning stand-by from that reported by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General reported figures of between 40 and 50 employees being in the stand-by shed; it is currently fewer than 20. A proposal is floated by the honourable member for Warrnambool and, I believe, by the shadow Treasurer in today's Herald-Sun, that painters should be used to remove graffiti. That practice is already in operation. The Lilydale railway line has been targeted and already painters are removing graffiti from buildings on that line. Other areas will be tackled as appropriate from time to time. The refurbishment of 2 Treasury Place has also led to a reduction in the number of tradesmen on stand-by. The objectives of the agreed arrangement between the government and the construction group are that stand-by costs will be severely curtailed and the government intends to deliver that result. It has been agreed that there will be improved productivity and work practices. It is important for both the morale of the construction group and the client relationships that the objectives are achieved. I believe next year's Auditor-General's report will show a very different picture. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Mrs GARBU'IT (Greensborough) - I direct a question to the Premier: what action is she taking to ensure that the recommendations in the Auditor-General's report are acted upon? Ms KIRNER (premier) - As the Minister for Planning and Housing has just said, the construction group in his Ministry is on six months notice: we are not going to tolerate the kinds of inefficiencies that are obvious in that construction group, and if it does not lift its game that will be the end of the group. Yesterday evening I spent a lot of time working through the Auditor-General's report and it seems to me one of the things that really has to change in the way governments respond to the Auditor-General's report is the process of response. The Auditor-General reports to Parliament and in the past the report has then gone out to Ministers for each to respond and ensure recommendations are implemented. Mr Richardson interjected. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Forest Hill. Mr Richardson - Tell the truth! The SPEAKER - Order! I warn the honourable member for Forest Hill. I cautioned him and he immediately made a quite unparliamentary interjection; if he persists in interjecting I will be forced to deal with him. Ms KIRNER - One of the major reasons for the establishment of the Ministry of Finance and the Expenditure Review Unit within it was to deal with expenditure issues. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1411

I have therefore requested the Minister for Finance to address with the Ministers all the issues raised in the Auditor-General's report and to report to Parliament in the Budget sessional period on actions that have been taken concerning implementation of recommendations. It is worth noting that, in his foreword, the Auditor-General states quite clearly that there have been important improvements in the management of various departments. In particular there have been major improvements in the operation of the highest spending Ministry, the Ministry of Education and Training. Nevertheless, I believe Parliament is entitled to not just a report from the Auditor-General - a crucial report - but also a statement from the government six months after his report on its implementation. It is also clear from the Auditor-General's report that control over expenditure, as set out in the last Budget, is tight. The government anticipates that the overall Budget expenditure for the financial year will be on target. Many comments have been made this morning that overall expenditure was not on target. That is not correct. The government will come in within the Budget estimate of $9.459 billion - an extraordinary performance in terms of the demand on the government during a recessionary period. The government estimates that the position will improve as the year progresses because of the concentration of tax receipts in the latter part of the financial year, the impact of the higher tax rates that were introduced in late 1990 and the further savings that the government will make in addressing the national downturn in revenue. Because of the way some people have commented on the Auditor-General's report one would think Victoria was alone in facing the national revenue losses. That is not true. My colleague the Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, is facing exactly the same issues, but he is addressing them by bringing in considerable advances from his statutory authorities. This government will not do that. It will address the shortfall by a balance of measures which includes additional savings on expenditure, recalling advances from some of the authorities, but only to the extent of $100 million, increasing the efficiency of revenue collection and further restrictions in the use of the Treasurer's Advance. I am confident that the expenditure as set out in the Budget is under control and I am determined that the content of the Auditor-General's report and the action taken will be reported to Parliament. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BUDGET Mr COOPER (Mornington) - I direct the Minister for Transport to his direct statements to the House as recorded in Hansard on 10 and 11 April: that our Budget is on target -- The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member must not quote from the Hansard record. Honourable members interjecting. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1412 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Mr Micallef - You should be quiet, dill! The SPEAKER - Order! I warn the honourable member for Springvale. He is well aware that he is out of order in making such an interjection and I ask him to remain silent, and for all honourable members to remain silent so that the honourable member for Mornington can ask his question. Mr COOPER - I refer to the Minister for Transport's direct statement to the House, recorded in Hansard on 10 and 11 April, "that our Budget is on target", and I ask: does the Minister stand by his two statements or does he now wish to change his answers? Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I am pleased that the honourable member has asked the question because I can reinforce the comments I made at that time and indicate that the Ministry of Transport budget expenditure is on target and that the Ministry is also on target in reducing its work force, which is dearly indicated in the Budget. There are, of course, changed circumstances regarding revenue because of the recession. The opposition every day in this House speaks about the impact on the Budget. The SPEAKER - Order! Mr SPYKER - When the Budget was framed, the opposition would be aware that it was not predicted the current economic recession would have the impact it has had. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr SPYKER - Are you going to shut up? The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the National Party is well aware of his responsibility in this House as the leader of a political party to show leadership by his behaviour. I ask him to remain silent and not to ask further questions or repeat the question by way of interjection. Mr SPYKER - Honourable members would be well aware of the economic impact the recession has had on my Ministry's budget, particularly in relation to freight. There was also a significant downturn in the movement of grain freight because of the dispute in the Middle East. We are all hopeful- - Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Mornington asked a very specific question. He referred the Minister to his answers of 10 and 11 April in which the Minister said his budget was on target and asked the Minister whether he stands by that statement, given the Auditor-General's report. The SPEAKER - Order! I have been listening carefully to both the question and the reply. It is dear the Minister's reply is to the point of the question. I do not uphold the point of order. Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The Middle East dispute also had an impact on fuel costs and the necessary adjustments were made early this year by a 10 per cent QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1413

fare increase. I ask the honourable member for Mornington to release his transport policies. He was on radio last week -- The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister is now digressing from the point of the question. I ask him to come back to it.

Mr SPYKER - It is important for the House to know of the comments he made on radio. He said, "We have got our policy ready. Alan Brown has got it". The SPEAKER - Order! The latter part of the reply is out of order. Has the Minister completed his reply?

Mr SPYKER - Instead of being critical, the honourable member should recognise, given the economic circumstances and community expectations of a good public transport system, that a terrific job has been done. At least the government has a policy, not like your party! You say Alan Brown has it. The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister is out of order! WORKCARE INDUSTRIAL LEVY RATES Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - Given the Auditor-General's acknowledgment that WorkCare is performing very well, has the Minister for Labour received any recent advice from the Accident Compensation Commission on industrial levy rates? If so, I ask him to inform the House of the impact of those levy rates on Victorian business.

Mr Kennett interjected. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Burwood is wasting the opportunity for questions by his interjections.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - Recently I received a report from the board of the Accident Compensation Commission with respect to the forthcoming industry levy rates for the year 1991-92. There was a fair amount of volatility last year with levy rates. In fact 36 industries moved down to a lower rate and 102 industries moved up to a higher rate with the realignment of the various industry rates. Given that 516 industry rates are dealt with, it is pleasing that this year there will be greater stability because 88 per cent of the industries will not be affected at all and only 29 industries will have their rates decreased and 35 will have their rates increased. Overall industry will benefit by $7 million because of the changes in industry rates. I categorise industries by their performance rates and in recent years local government administration has been in the top twenty industries. It is particularly pleasing to note the improvement in the performance of this industry in the past year. A lot of work has been done in this area with my department in conjunction with local government, employers, employees and various WorkCare agencies to improve its WorkCare performance. As a result it has had one of this year's most excellent results in the reduction of WorkCare claims and therefore there will be a reduction of $8.B million in QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1414 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

the levy payable by local government, which of course will be appreciated by local government throughout the State and will benefit the ratepayers. This improvement is indicative of the benefits to be gained by any industry that buckles down and deals with rehabilitation, prevention and claims management. The WorkCare in local government working party was established in October 1989 to bring abou t this result, which can be repeated in every other industry if they put their minds to it. The great improvement with WorkCare referred to by the Auditor-General was only to June 1990. The actuary's report tabled last Thursday, which was to the end of December 1990, shows this improvement had continued right up to that date.

I commend local government and my own department as well as the WorkCare agencies on their efforts with this industry and I hope the situation is repeated throughout all industries in Victoria.

The SPEAKER - Order! I call the honourable member for Malvern. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! No matter what the honourable member's record is, he is entitled to ask a question without interruption. I ask honourable members to remain silent.

Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - On a point of order, I do not believe it is becoming for the Chair to reflect on individual members. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Mr LEIGH (Malvern) - I refer the Minister for Planning and Housing to the Auditor-General's statement regarding the department's phantom fleet of 195 vehicles and I ask: did the so-called remedial action taken by the Minister include the transfer and promotion of the officer concerned to fleet manager of the Department of Finance?

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I am amazed by the question because obviously if someone is transferred that has to be agreed by an officer or the Minister at the other end. The phantom car fleet is a serious issue about the nature of the Auditor-General's report. The car fleet issue at the former Ministry of Housing and Construction, now the Department of Planning and Housing, has been reported to Parliament, but corrective action was taken during 1990. The Auditor-General did not commence his investigations until 1991 and he was reporting on matters on which the necessary corrective action had been taken. However, that is not the impression one gets when reading the report.

Mr Maclellan - He was revealing an old scandal was he? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1415

Mr McCUTCHEON - He was revealing a matter on which the necessary corrective action had been taken. The Auditor-General's task is to improve the management of government. Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the question was specifically about the substance of the issue and, to date, the Minister has not said one word about that. He is participating in the long-running track record of attacks by Ministers on the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has documented the matter and included a departmental response in his report. I put it that the Minister's reply is not an answer to the question and is yet another disgraceful attack on the independence of the Office of the Auditor-General. The SPEAKER - Order! The essential issue raised in the point of order is the relevance of the Minister's reply to the question asked. I uphold the point of order, and I ask the Minister to relate his remarks to the question. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - As to the car fleet of the former Ministry of Housing and Construction and the current Department of Planning and Housing, the matters addressed by the Auditor-General were successively undertaken and addressed during 1990. The colour of vehicles was addressed late in 1990 and the use of high-kilometre vehicles was addressed in November 1990. The question of vehicles being driven home -- Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Minister has a prepared reply on this issue and is simply proceeding to ignore your last ruling, Sir, which was that he address the question. The question asked whether the officer involved was promoted or transferred to the Ministry of Finance. The Minister wants to conduct a debate on whether the Auditor-General's report was correct in its emphasis, but that was not the question. The question was whether the officer responsible for the scandal was promoted to the Ministry of Finance. Ms KIRNER (premier) - On the point of order, the question asked was about the management of the car fleet of the former Ministry of Housing and Construction, which has since been transferred to the Ministry of Finance. The answer is being given; there is no point of order. The Minister is addressing the question; in short, he is saying that the car fleet needs a broom taken to it, and that is exactly what will happen under this government through the Minister for Finance. The SPEAKER - Order! Mr Kennett - You can't go against the Premier! The SPEAKER - Order! I warn the honourable member for Burwood, who insists on speaking when the Chair is on his feet. If he persists in flouting Standing Orders and the forms and practices of the House, I shall deal with him accordingly. The fact that the Minister has some notes before him which mayor may not make him well informed on the issue is beside the point. The Minister is entitled to put his reply to the question in context. At this stage of his reply I do not uphold the point of order. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1416 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I reiterate to the House that the various matters relating to the management of the car fleet in the Ministry of Housing and Construction were addressed during 1990. In 1991 the approved level of vehicles for the department is 575. The current level of vehicles is 575, and 24 vehicles are in the process of being disposed of. With regard to the management of the car fleet I understand that, prior to my becoming the Minister responsible, the manager was transferred, at grade, to the Ministry of Finance, and that puts to rest yet another heresy being perpetrated by the opposition. Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I raise with you the Chair's reflection on one of my colleagues, the honourable member for Malvern. Clearly, in my judgment, Sir, the reflection of the Chair very much brings into question the absolute necessity for impartiality by the Chair. The independence of the Chair is somewhat imperilled when a remark, be it a throwaway line or a thought-out position, is made in reflection on an honourable member on either side of the House. Even earlier today I noted that when questions were asked by government members such as the honourable member for Springvale no such reference about his past performance or track record was made. Surely if the Chair is to reflect on either the integrity or past performance of members of the House, it must either be undertaken uniformly, or it should not happen at all. I would submit that it should not happen at all. The opposition upholds the dignity and respect of the Chair that the position commands, and as Leader of the Opposition I therefore raise this point with you again. I think it was wrong and improper of you to reflect on my colleague, and it should not happen again.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, there can be no point of order on this matter because the premise is wrong. The comment made by you was absolutely neutral. The honourable member for Malvern rose to ask a question and faced ridicule from the government benches, for reasons that are well understood by those of us on this side, and in defending the honourable member for Malvern you said that a member on either side was entitled to ask a question, whatever his or record was. In saying that, you were not saying that he had a good record or a bad record. What you were doing, quite properly, was defending the right of any honourable member in this House, whatever his or her record, to stand up and ask a question without quite so many disorderly interjections. We have never before heard such crocodile tears from the opposition. It has treated the Chair with total disrespect; j~ has treated the forms of the House with total disrespect. The number of times it has flouted the Speaker's rulings during the course of this week QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1417

would probably constitute a record, and the coalition Leaders have constantly had to be called to order by you, Mr Speaker, yet despite that they continue to do it. To suggest, above all of this, that the honourable member for Malvern has a hide which is penetrated by a neutral comment like that must be one of the great jokes of our time. If anyone has a thin skin it is not the honourable member for Malvern, nor is it any of the coalition Leaders here who come in and behave like a bunch of cowboys and show nothing but disrespect for the Chair. Honourable members interjecting. Mr KENNAN - If you don't like the heat perhaps you should get out of the kitchen! You should take a Melleril with your Weeties and you will calm down. The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Premier is entitled to put a point of order and to be heard in silence. I suggest he not do so in a provocative manner. Mr KENNAN - I am sorry, Mr Speaker, it is very much out of character for me to be provocative. Can I say that honourable members on this side of the House defend your right to defend members of the opposition and what you said could in no way on any reasonable standard constitute a reflection. Your comment was absolutely neutral and in defence of the right of honourable members, whatever their position or record in the House, to stand up and ask a question. Nothing could be more neutral; it was a simple neutral statement defending the rights of honourable members of this house. The SPEAKER - Order! There has been sufficient comment on the point of order. Mr Elder - Do we get the right of reply? The SPEAKER - Order! The issue is simple and straightforward; the remark I made was intended to be neutral and humorous. I regret that it has been interpreted otherwise by some honourable members and to that extent I apologise and apologise for any offence caused to any honourable member. The time for questions without notice has expired. Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - Mr Speaker -­ Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Premier is out of order, as is the Leader of the Opposition. The time for questions without notice has expired. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have a point of order? Mr STOCKDALE - The point of order I want to raise concerns the aspersions cast by the Deputy Premier on conduct in this House. In the context of the performance put on by the Deputy Premier, the opposition is entitled to respond to what he said. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member has a point of order he is entitled to raise it but he is not entitled to use it to debate the comments made in earlier QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

1418 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 Apri11991

proceedings such as the point of order on which the Deputy Premier and the Leader of the Opposition spoke. Mr STOCKDALE - I am dealing with the question of a breach of Standing Orders in the offensive imputations made by the Deputy Premier. The SPEAKER - Order! That matter has been dealt with. If the honourable member has anything further -- Honourable members interjecting. Mr STOCKDALE - The imputations were out of order and I ask that they be withdrawn by the Deputy Premier. I make it clear that the opposition made a decision at the beginning of this session that it was unhappy with the standard of behaviour dictated by the government in this House and the provocative attitudes adopted and the reaction they evoked. It has been clear during this session that the opposition has deliberately sought to improve the level of decorum in the House. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order and to be heard in silence. However if he wishes to raise comments made by the Deputy Premier or any other honourable member at an earlier stage, his opportunity to take offence at those remarks was at the time. No-one sought to rise to seek the call of the Chair before the conclusion of the Deputy Premier's remarks. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The opportunity was there but not taken. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition remains entitled to raise a point of order at this stage if it is in accordance with the custom and practice of the Standing Orders of the House. Mr STOCKDALE - The point I was making was that the opposition has been visibly and successfully endeavouring to raise the standard of the decorum of the House. Oearly the government did not know how to respond to that initially and it is equally clear that a week ago the government made a decision that it was going to provoke a response and part of the leadership of that has been with the Deputy Premier. It has been very clear about the conduct of the back bench -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! H the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a point of order to make he is entitled to make it. However, he is not entitled to use it for an unrestricted speech and I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come directly to the point of order. Mr STOCKDALE - My point of order is that the imputation was against the opposition; the guilty party is the government and I ask the Deputy Premier to withdraw the imputation. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1419

An Honourable Member - And apologise. The SPEAKER - Order! In the circumstances I invite the Deputy Premier to withdraw the imputation the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finds offensive. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - As I understand it, the imputation the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finds offensive is an attack not on an individual but on the opposition. If he is not asking for a withdrawal of an imputation or words that an individual finds offensive in relation to that individual he is out of order. An Honourable Member - It is too late. Honourable Members - Withdraw. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Chair asked the Deputy Premier whether he would withdraw as requested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Premier said his generalised comments were not directed to a particular member and, as such, he is not prepared to withdraw. In those circumstances, there is no point of order. Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker -­ Honourable members interjecting. Mr BROWN - My further point of order is this: as I understand it you ruled in part that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have raised this issue at the appropriate time which was when the Deputy Premier was casting the aspersions. I put to you that you cannot interrupt a point of order with a point of order and that the first available opportunity my colleague, the Deputy Leader, had was when he stood up for the point of order and you refused to hear him. I would like you to clarify for the future, when someone like the Deputy Premier or any other front bench or back bench member of the government, in the remaining time they have left as government, gets up as they undoubtedly will and casts aspersions in the course of a point of order, as I understand it, we are debarred from interrupting for a further point of order -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister for Conservation and Environment is out of order, as he is well aware; I ask him to remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition enjoys an important role in the Parliamentary system and is entitled to be heard without interruption. Mr BROWN - Quite simply, Mr Speaker, I am seeking clarification by way of a further ruling, which I believe should overturn what you indicated to the House a few minutes ago in so much as no honourable member can interrupt a member when he is on his feet taking a point of order. The next available opportunity for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to raise a point of order was when he raised it; there was no opportunity before that. PETITION

1420 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! On the point of order, it is not correct to say that when an honourable member is speaking, whether on a point of order or some other matter, he cannot be interrupted in respect of a matter of disorderly conduct. I include within that the use of offensive or unbecoming words and imputations, which is a different matter from aspersions, which was the word used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Stockdale - And imputations. The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the provisions of Standing Orders. As a general rule, I would advise honourable members to immediately raise with the Chair words that they find offensive or unbecoming, or anything else that comes under the provisions of Standing Order No. 108. However, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the Chair has used its discretion on this occasion, as it may on other occasions, to enable the matter to be raised at a later stage of proceedings - in this case, after the Deputy Premier had concluded his remarks and the point of order had been dealt with. Mr BROWN - So we can interrupt a point of order? Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! If any honourable member is in doubt as to the ruling I have just given, I suggest he or she raise a further point of order or refer to the Hansard record.

PETITION The Clerk - I have received the following petition for presentation to Parliament: Gambling in the State of Victoria To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Victorian citizens shows that - because of the detrimental effect of gambling upon the disposable income of families and the demonstrated social and economic pressures placed on families' disposable income resulting in hardship, divorce and poverty, such means of gambling ought to be limited. (Conservative estimates show that in New South Wales $1500 per head of population is gambled more than presently in Victoria.) Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will disallow any regulations or legislation allowing for increased means, mechanisms, or places for gambling in the State of Victoria, including - poker machines, Tabarets, or casinos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Mr John (189 signatures)

Laid on tab le. LAKESIDE HOSPITAL, BALLARAT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1421

LAKESIDE HOSPITAL, BALLARAT Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General), by leave, presented report of a board of investigation to inquire into certain clinical and management practices at Lakeside Hospital, Ballarat.

Laid on tab le.

PAPERS Laid on tab le by Clerk: Ombudsman - Report for the year 1989-90 - Ordered to be printed. Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Notices of approval of amendments to the following planning schemes: Baimsdale (City) Planning Scheme - No. L18. Ullydale Planning Scheme - No. 163. Port Melbourne Planning Scheme - No. L7. Shepparton (Shire) Planning Scheme - No. 120.

CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN Mrs RAY (Box Hill) - I move: That this House congratulates the government for the Choice and Opportunity Plan to meet the needs of women who want to return to work and study, by making it possible to consider work or study options, enabling an infonned choice to be made, assisting women to learn the necessary skills and to find a job which is convenient and satisfying. This program, the Choice and Opportunity Plan, grew from a determination by the Labor government to assist women to return to work and to study. Let there be no mistake about it, this is a choice that women themselves are seeking. The key words are "opportunity" and IIchoice". Without some programs there can be no choice, and without other programs the opportunities are severely resbicted. I am pleased to be part of a government that takes the needs of women seriously. I have also been pleased to participate personally in providing advice to the present Minister and successive education Ministers as a member of the advisory committee on the needs of women and girls in education for the past six years. As a former secondary school teacher I am aware that the areas of mathematics, science and technology in the curricula have often been areas not chosen by large numbers of female students. Through the creative efforts and teaching skills of women who have expertise in these areas, user-friendly courses are becoming available, which makes these subjects much more accessible and more often chosen by women and girls. The government has been pleased to support with resources the Maths, Science and Technology Centre for girls' education. This is just an example of the government's CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1422 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

readiness to examine different ways of including women in, rather than excluding them from, knowledge and participation. The premise of the Choice and Opportunity Plan is the fact that in order to facilitate women's return to work and to study there has to be adequate child-care; there have to be adequate employment opportunities and, in some cases, training and retraining. One of the earliest understandings of the neighbourhood house movement was that the provision of child-care is absolutely essential to women's participation in the community or in any other form of activity outside the home. Currently 65 per cent of women in Victoria who have children are in the work force and half of those have children under the age of five years. In the years since the early 1970s, when child-care was placed on the national agenda by the then Federal Labor government partly through the appointment of a women's adviser, the demand and necessity for child-care have become more widely acknowledged.

In Victoria, for example, in the mid-1980s the State government was involved with the Commonwealth government, in partnership with local government, in providing large numbers of child-care centres across the State. This was the first serious effort to provide centre-based child care through the government.

In the electorate I represent, for example, three child-care centres have been built in Box Hill and four have been built in the Oty of Nunawading. The Nunawading City Council is currently interested in pursuing with the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works - which has a regional office in that area - the possibility of having a centre-based facility shared by staff and other members of the wider community.

Anne Summers, who was the head of the Office of Women's Affairs between 1983 and 1986, recently returned to Australia and addressed the National Press Club. She was commenting on the fact that there are a large number of achievements in Australia that go unheralded by natives. She said:

I think we can be very proud of the fact that a country which twenty years ago was notorious around the world for sexism and chauvinism has become a world leader in putting women's issues on the political agenda.

She went on to compare Australia's record in child-care with the record of the United States of America, where in 1971 former President Richard Nixon was responsible for a veto on a Federal child-care program, with the result that in 1991, when there are 64 per cent of American women in the work force, there is still no Federal child-care program in the United States. I might say that when that veto was invoked, almost half of the women in America were already in the paid work force.

The child-care centres in the Commonwealth, State and local government partnership to which I have referred have been followed by out-of-school-hours programs and, in more recent years, work-based child-care. Most recently the Minister for Community Services announced the extension of occasional care, which offers a different kind of choice and opportunity to women. I shall make brief reference to the three of those in turn. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday~ 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1423

In the out~f-school-hours program, 10000 places have been provided in Victoria and half of those have been fully funded by the State government since 1988. They are actually operated by committees of school councils which are paid an establishment grant, operational costs, and an allocation for fee relief so that equal access is ensured and inability to pay is not an excluding factor. In the work-based child-care area the work was first undertaken by the Department of Labour in 1989 in a special unit set up to explore the possibility of these centres being established. That has been transferred across to the recently established Office of Preschool and Child Care and already the promotional activities of that office are having a positive effect. More than 300 organisations, for example, have contacted the unit for information and advice. A conference was organised late last year in which 150 people participated. These delegates were largely from the private sector. A kit outlining models of different work-based child-care centres has been widely distributed along with a booklet on conducting feasibility studies for the use of companies. So far a thousand kits have found their way into company offices. This unit also administers a feasibility study fund, which offers grants of up to $7500 to companies to assist in setting up a work-based child-care facility. Already a child-care centre has been established by the Bank of Melbourne; Peat Marwick Hungerford has purchased a share in a centre; a vacation care program has been set up by a consortium of financial institutions; and a number of public hospitals have work-based child-care facilities for their staff. An interesting consideration in all of this is the possible benefits and advantages of child-care centres being situated off-site but subsidised by a number of companies, because it seems greater freedom is offered to the parent worker if child-care facilities are not intricately bound to the workplace.

The occasional care take-a-break program announced in January this year has provided more than 3500 places, and that number is expected to double during the next twelve months. Obviously that program will provide further opportunities of up to 3 hours for women to undertake courses, and so on. In colleges of technical and further education er APE) the Choice and Opportunity Plan has made available an additional $400 ()()() to cover the costs of fees for students who are eligible to undertake TAPE courses, which makes a total of $2 million that has been spent in the TAPE sector for the provision of child-care facilities. Child-care has always been available in community houses and is seen as basic to their running. Obviously that has been done on an ad hoc, voluntary basis, and only now is systematic funding being provided by the State. Until the Choice and Opportunity Plan was introduced all funded child-care centres in the eastern region - of which there were three - were funded under designated grants from the Commonwealth government. This year 23 child-care centres in the eastern region associated with neighbourhood CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1424 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

houses will be fully funded by the State government and will be able to offer up to 44 3-hour sessions per week. This is fundamental to enabling women to participate in further education. Employment opportunities are obviously part of the expanded choice for women that the government has focused on under the plan. Over the twelve months to the end of 1990484 women were placed in full-time work and 593 in part-time work under the Joblink program. This program is not focused entirely on the placement of women in the work force because it has as its target group the long-term unemployed. Nevertheless 53 per cent of its clients across the State are women. The service is based on one-to-one counselling through eighteen Joblink offices around Victoria. An additional 265 women have been placed in work through funding provided to eight non-government agencies that work with women who may have special needs because of their geographic location or disability. Joblink has put on additional counsellors in Morwell, Sunshine, Ringwood and Box Hill, where large numbers of people trying to find work or seeking to go back into the paid work force have been identified. In Box Hill, for example, three generalist counsellors were appointed in March 1989 and a specialist counsellor was appointed in October of the same year. At that office 75 per cent of the people assisted are women and 24 per cent are the only income earners in the family. There is no doubt that the work done by the office in placing women, particularly in clerical positions, has been spectacularly successful. Many of the women found that with the advent of modern technology their skills had become outdated, so the Box Hill office has focused on giving them access to training in computers and other modern office equipment. The office has been responsible for 236 women gaining office employment over the past two years. I congratulate the Box Hill staff for their effective response to the needs of women in the eastern region. In 1990 the Joblink program undertook an analysis of the access migrant women had to the program. I know that in my local area women from Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia have been identified as needing additional assistance if we are to respond to their need for paid employment. It is one thing to provide such programs but it is another and difficult thing to disseminate information to enable the people who want to use the services to tap into them. Making It Possible, which was appropriately launched on Women's Day 1990, is a publication that in a simple and concrete form brings together information about the training and employment programs that are offered by the Commonwealth, State and other agencies. For example, the publication gives information on support services such as vocational and financial counselling; and its value is demonstrated by the fact that 32 000 copies have been distributed through neighbourhood houses, offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service and offices of members of Parliament - and we have received repeated requests for additional copies. An accompanying pamphlet has been translated into twelve community languages and clearly serves as a conduit for the dissemination of detailed information. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1425

In their search for employment women have been further assisted by the provision of a Job and Course Explorer computer package, which was implemented in 1990 and which has been made available in 65 neighbourhood houses so far. Sometimes this has meant the installation of hardware as well as software; and a further 65 hardware and software packages will be installed this year.

It is expected that by the end of next year a total of 200 neighbourhood houses will have access to the computer-based package. There are two advantages of the package: not only is the information up to date and comprehensive, but also it gives women the confidence to use computers in a supportive environment. The package gives knowledge of education and work options that allow women to set themselves realistic goals and not to entertain false expectations about how their skills might match the positions available.

At the State level $1 million has been provided for the continuation of the computer hard ware and software program, and in the eastern metropolitan region the program is available in a large number of centres. In 1990 four centres - the Blackburn Literacy Program, the Donvale Living and Learning Centre, the Healesville Living and Learning Centre and the North Ringwood Community House - received the package. This year, Alcom Aat at Ashwood, the Warrandyte Neighbourhood House, the Amaroo Neighbourhood House, Morrison House, the Mitcham Community House and the Vermont South Community House will all receive the package. Software programs have been given to a further seven centres where computers have already been installed.

The Choice and Opportunity Plan has also provided increased funds for Victoria's 320 neighbourhood houses and community centres. These are now catering for about 1 million people annually. Women predominantly use these centre. It is difficult to quantify the actual number funded because of their diverse sources of funding but most of them are funded through the State's community services budget for coordinators' salaries and operating costs or by further education funds that provide for the coordination of classes and the educational programs.

For example, in the Eastern Region an additional twelve houses have received coordination funding since 1989-90. The community houses at Alamein, Arrabri, Central Ringwood, Coonara, Emerald, Kallista, Kew, the literacy programs at Blackburn and Maroondah and the programs at Vermont South Neighbourhood House and Wavlink have all been able to increase their services through coordination funding.

In the Eastern Region the number of educational programs offered in these community-based providers has grown from 76 in 1988 to a phenomenal figure of 359 in 1991. Enrolments have expanded from 1273 to 3358. It is clear from this growth in participation that people want these programs and they are responding to people's needs. The majority of these people need access to supportive environments because of earlier educational disadvantage and they need these programs to re-enter the work force or to play a more active role in the community - not all of the outcomes are vocational. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1426 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

I should like to make some comments about the value and the role of neighbourhood houses. I owe my introduction to them to the pioneering work of Phil Slattery of the Nunawading North Neighbourhood Centre in the early 1980s. Although no longer operating, this centre along with the Diamond Valley Learning Centre and the Mountain District Women's Cooperative, were the earliest centres in Victoria to bring women together for discussion and for formal and informal learning. They have had a remarkable capacity to respond to the needs of different women who have attended them, whether it was the provision of cooking classes, traditional weaving for newly arrived women from Laos, basic literacy, advanced Italian or VCE English. They have become effective assimilators of women with special needs - although they did not start out like that.

They are also the launching pads for sometimes spectacular academic success. I must say the bread-making tutor at the Avenue Neighbourhood House of six years ago has now taken up a post-graduate scholarship from Monash University following an honours degree in philosophy. Stories like that demonstrate the learning path that sometimes opens up in modest but favourable environments. Above all they have broken down the isolation of many women who were home based and encouraged them to try new things.

The Victorian Women's Consultative Council undertook an important consultation with the women of Victoria at the request of the previous Premier and that was perhaps one of the most successful dialogues with ordinary women that government has ever undertaken. The women responded in droves to the questionnaires and they were all overwhelmed that the government was interested in what they wanted. Sometimes their involvement in neighbourhood houses has returned them to the work force successfully and that is terrific. Sometimes it has given them the skills and insights to deal with their difficult parenting roles and their roles as home-makers or they have been encouraged to find interests which have significantly strengthened their personal lives.

It is only in the past ten years that this system has received any funding on a systematic basis. For example, the Nunawading Neighbourhood Centre received funding through the Australian Assistance Plan in the early 1970s and lived from hand to mouth with government grants of various kinds. The Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) program provided funding for women returning to study which led to special work with computer training and the State Employment Initiative Program (EIP) was also successful a source of funds. There are still wide variations in working conditions and in the salary ranges. Some tutors are on award salaries, some are entirely voluntary and others are paid through "user pays" contributions.

I should like to make some comment on the opportunities for women that have become available in rural areas. These have been outlined effectively in a report by Helen Kimberley and Dorothy Dorsman called Returning to Learning; Opportunities for Rural Women. It was sponsored by the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Women and Girls and launched in Ballarat in March this year. It is in two parts identifying the barriers to CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1427

women returning to study and outlining some piloted strategies to overcome the barriers. The barriers to women's educational opportunities were identified as: people's attitudes; the women's situation; and, the expectations of women's roles, and the way in which the system is geared. People's attitudes perhaps needs some explanation. For example, it was noted that the family was tolerant and encouraging so long as its life was not greatly interrupted by the woman's return to study. Friends were not always as supportive as they might have been, either. The expectations of the role often meant that the demands on women for voluntary community services threatened their return to study. The writers of this report have summed up these attitudes very well under a heading "Education for women is still considered a luxury". It states:

Society in general does not view favourably, or support, a woman returning to education. Attitudes will need to change to assist women to take their place within education and within the work force. While economic policy focuses upon "vocational" outcomes for post-secondary education, women need access to education to assist them personally, and in their unpaid family and community work. That is a necessary step to take to maintain rural communities. Educational institutions also do not exhibit support for women returning to learning. It is the women who have to adapt and change to fit the structures and curriculum designed for the young male. The report identified the principles necessary for women to successfully access study and learning. They were identified under these points: women must be in control of their own learning; content must be relevant and determined by women; broad options and child-care must be available; the location and timing of courses must be as close as possible to women's homes and must recognise women's role in society; their experiences must be acknowledged and valued; and women need to support other women who are undertaking further study.

In summing up, the report said the role of community-based providers of adult education in rural areas must be acknowledged and valued because their approach directly reflects the principles outlined which enable women to participate successfully. Many of the courses described in the report have been developed in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and the Rural Women's Network. For example, at Casterton a successful series of courses from the community centre established in the old courthouse led to the stronger involvement of women in farm productivity.

The Farmgate Leaming project at Benalla is another example of cooperation between the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the local TAPE college. At Echuca a very successful program involved twenty Koori women who took part in learning a new skill. A traditional basket maker from the area lived with them and taught the craft for a number of weeks. As a result of this experience, which valued their cultural identity, the Koori community wants to plug into the Echuca Community Education Centre for other courses. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1428 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

On 28 March this year the Minister for Education and Training announced his intention to draft legislation on adult, community and further education. He said the proposed legislation was the result of a long period of consultation but that there would be further consultation on the Bill when it is developed. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the key elements of the Bill in Hansard. Leave granted; document as follows: EXTRACT FROM A STATEMENT ON ADULT, COMMUNITY AND FURTHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION By the Minister for Education and Training, Mr Barry Pullen, on the 28th March 1991. The key elements of the Bill are: An Adult, Community and Further Education Board (ACFEB) with responsibility for the promotio~ planning, coordination and administration of all community-based provision of adult, community and further education in Victoria, including the Council of Adult Education and the Adult Migrant Education Service. The State Training Board (STB) to have responsibility for vocational education and training as defined in the Vocational Education and Training Act 1990 and for the promotion, planning, coordination and administration of adult, community and further education undertaken by TAPE colleges. Arrangements for joint planning between the ACFEB and the STB for the provision of adult, community and further education in Victoria. This will involve the establishment of objectives and strategies and the setting of targets including social justice targets for adult, community and further education. Regional Adult, Community and Further Education Councils with responsibility for advising the Adult, Community and Further Education Board (ACFEB) on the promotio~ planning, coordination and administration of community-based provision of adult, community and further education within their region and advising the ACFEB on planning for all adult, community and further education provision within their regions as part of the joint planning process. An Office of the Adult, Community and Further Education Board which will include central and regional staff. Mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between the ACFEB and the STB on the management of Commonwealth adult, community and further education funds and in areas such as curriculum development, staff development and articulation for adult, community and further education programs. The recognition of the Council of Adult Education's important role as a major provider of adult, community and further education programs through the requirement that the Chair of the CAB also be a Deputy Chair of the ACFEB. Mrs RAY - As the key elements of the Bill have been incorporated, I simply point out that the legislation will address the areas of further education in TAPE colleges, in community-based provision and in the Council of Adult Education (CAE). The submission of the CAE to the current Senate inquiry into adult community education adds an important contribution to our understanding of the future of community education, in particular the suggestion that Commonwealth contributions to this sector are as appropriate as to the vocational sector. It also suggests that award CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1429

wages and career pathways for teachers are equally appropriate in this perhaps previously undervalued sector. In conclusion, I should like to say that in my nine years as a member of Parliament one of my most valued tasks has been to advocate women's opportunities and I have had many forums in which to do that. There are several reasons why I have enjoyed doing it. I believe women have an equal but different contribution to make to society and they should be provided with ways of doing so.

I recognise that for a variety of reasons many women who are my contemporaries have not had the same opportunities for education as I had. For many girls it is the attitude of their parents, particularly their fathers, that shapes their expectations and aspirations. For my father, who came to education as a mature-age student, there was never any question that education was immensely valuable for its own sake. It made no difference whether you were his son or his daughter, he believed you should have the opportunity to pursue it as far as you could or wanted to.

When I have sat in government forums deciding on issues relating to choice and opportunity for women, I have always had in my mind the next generation of women whose experience of course is as varied as that of our own generation. Opportunities have vastly expanded for women in the past twenty years, but I warn my daughters and their contemporaries that these changes will not necessarily be maintained without vigilance. It does not happen as a matter of course, and each generation needs to affirm the gains of the previous one.

I have obviously had in mind the women and girls who, by the nature of things, have had fewer opportunities than some of us as a result of being constrained by poverty, disability, prejudice or migration.

Mr Speaker, nothing focuses the mind on the need for improvement and continuing effort like the arrival of one's own grandchildren. I must say that Suzanne and Beth have had something to do with it. By the time Daniel and Michael are old enough to read this I hope they will recognise that they have a role to play in this process as men in the 21st century. I acknowledge that none of these choices and opportunities could have been implemented without the support of fair-minded men.

I congratulate the government on the success of its Choice and Opportunity Plan. Any sceptics in the House who might seek proof of the success of the program should look around, visit neighbourhood houses in their electorates, the Joblink offices and child-care centres where they will find many women willing to talk about the changes in their lives that these services have made possible.

I look forward to improvements in the opportunities and choices available to women, and particularly to the passage of the further education legislation which will further assist an educational sector which has already significantly and dramatically changed the lives of many Victorian women. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1430 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I shall commence my contribution by saying I felt extremely sorry for the honourable member for Box Hill in having to move the motion this morning. I assume she gave notice of the motion shortly after the last State election, probably in the couple of weeks that the government was celebrating what it then called its historic third term. I am sure it did not recognise perhaps how historic its third term would be! However I congratulate the honourable member on focusing on some important issues. It is important that these issues, which are significant to Victorian women, should have a major place in our consideration of all policies. The Choice and Opportunity Plan for women was one of the government's 1988 election policies. It was released in September 1988 and, like all ALP 1988 election policies, was a fraud. The government seems to be very smug about its policies, although its current policies, as opposed to public relations stunts, appear to be very few and far between. I suggest the government is unwise in inviting any detailed examination of its performance. It is important to remember that propaganda should not be confused with action. Before I examine the Choice and Opportunity Plan in detail and the outcome of the policies embodied in the plan it is necessary to look at the context in which the plan has operated. It is relevant to note that it has been a major strategy of the government over the past ten years to establish what I call narrow public relations stunts based or focused on forums, plans and press releases directed to appealing to different interest groups. All of those have two things in common: firstly, they confine the discussion of an issue to a narrow area and exclude events which are unfavourable to the government; secondly, they frequently encompass hidden agendas and the distortion of factors, which at the very best is misleading and at the very worst may be fraudulent. Some examples known to us were contained in the various green and gold economic strategy documents that have now been consigned to the wastepaper basket. They were designed to suggest to the Victorian business community that it had a professional government with expertise in financial management and which was really concerned about the betterment of the business community. The reality behind those green and gold documents was that we had massive speculative intervention in the business sector by public servants and by Ministers who had no expertise at all. We had massive buying of public sector jobs to please the government's union mates. All of that was paid for by massive borrowings, and some very suspect borrowings at that. The reality behind the green and gold documents has been exposed. Instead of ensuring that Victorians had a long-term future the government has taken us to the brink of destruction. To come closer to the debate before us today, in a policy document such as the Choice and Opportunity Plan one finds promises of various sorts and motherhood statements as were found in the economic strategy documents. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thmsday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1431

What really counts is what is happening in the wider environment; that is the area we should be debating today before we look at detail. What really counts is that young girls are being deprived of a future because their families are broke and because they are being forced out into the work force or being forced on to the dole. What really counts is that wives who have been working part-time in order to pay for their children's education expenses or for the necessities of life are being forced out of their jobs; the careers of women in full-time employment have been cut off because businesses are failing as a result of government policy, including massive increases in taxes, and there are no other jobs for those women. What really counts is that women in rural Victoria cannot get a job at all. The honourable member for Box Hill talked about the difficulties of getting training and education in rural Victoria, but women in rural Victoria, even if they could get education, cannot find jobs. Women in rural Victoria see their family farms, which they have worked on together with their husbands and children, being repossessed by financial institutions because of circumstances which are totally beyond their control. What really counts is that women out there are having nervous breakdowns, and worse, because of the destruction of their jobs, destruction of their family businesses, destruction of family farms and loss of their family savings through the number of major financial institution collapses in Victoria. In some cases, as with Pyramid, they are getting something back, but others who put all their savings in organisations such as Securities Directors, in Brighton, are getting back nothing at all and have to start again right from the beginning. Before we get drawn into debate about details of Labor Party policies and media releases for women we must focus on the big picture: the disastrous environment this government has caused for all Victorians, although today we are focusing on the position of women in particular. Let me put it this way, the honourable member for Box Hill has moved:

That this House congratulates the government for the Choice and Opportunity Plan to meet the needs of women. .. I feel like someone on the deck of the Titanic being invited to congratulate the captain for the design of the material on the deckchairs - probably polka dot material!

My copy of the Choice and Opportunity Plan tells me that it was authorised and printed by P. Batchelor, Drummond Street, Carlton. I think that sums up the document it probably has as much reliability as a Nunawading how-to-vote card! When one looks at pages 5 and 6 of the plan one is reminded of the government's promises about the education expense allowance. At those pages there is a promise to increase the education expense allowance from $60 to $100 per child - I notice that the honourable member for Box Hill did not refer to this aspect of the plan - or $200 for the average Victorian family, as it was expressed by the former Premier in his family pledge. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1432 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The education expense allowance was one of the major items in the family pledge. We all remember that it was a pledge; it was not a promise to be broken. The pledge was that, taking into account the education expense allowance, the average Victorian family would not pay a dollar more for a range of government services. The family pledge was the major promise to families in the ALP promises for the 1988 election. I should have thought it would have been one of the major considerations that women in Victoria would take into account when deciding how to vote at that election. It may well be that the family pledge gave us another term of ALP government. The pledge was breached well before it was abandoned. In 1990-91 the average family of two adults and two children had to pay an extra $423 per annum for the basket of services that the former Premier promised would cost not a dollar more. The pledge was thrown away by the present Premier within days of her coming to office. So much for pledges being more binding on the Labor government than are promises. Since the pledge has been ditched public transport fares have increased by more than 25 per cent and fees for drivers licences and water charges have increased. Going back to the crucial element of the family pledge, the education expense allowance, the Choice and Opportunity Plan included the following statement, and I am quoting directly from the plan: To further ease the burden on families the Cain goverrunent introduced the education expense allowance in 1987 to provide $60 per child to families eligible for the family allowance. In 1988 this State government payment will be increased to $100 and extended to all children between four years and sixteen years of age. The education expense allowance was never extended to all children between four and sixteen years of age and it was discontinued totally this financial year. Now no child in Victoria is eligible for the education expense allowance - a loss of $200 to the average Victorian family in addition to the increased expenses I have already mentioned. The promises contained in the Choice and Opportunity Plan, to increase the education expense allowance and that the Cain government would actively promote price restraint, have turned out to be no more than a confidence trick. The education expense allowance has gone and the Victorian CPI has risen by 17 per cent since the December quarter of 1988, when the family pledge was made. That has been a higher rise than the national average. Any person in this State, male or female, who depended on the family pledge or any of the statements in the Choice and Opportunity Plan has been conned by the government. Not only are we paying more for government services but families have lost the education expense allowance and they are paying more in State government taxes which, as we all know, went up 16 per cent this financial year. The government has mortgaged the future of women in Victoria, and it has mortgaged the fu ture of their children and their grandchildren. The honourable member for Box Hill referred to job opportunities, but they are declining every day. In March the national and Victorian unemployment rate was 9.2 per cent. In CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1433

March the unemployment rate In Victoria increased faster than in any other State. During the past year the unemployment rate in Victoria grew by 4.4 per cent compared with a national increase of 3 per cent. The number of Victoria,ns out of work has almost doubled since this time last year and the number of women who are unemployed is far higher as a proportion of their numbers in the work force.

If corrective action is not taken Victoria's unemployment rate will continue to increase. As I said, female participation in the work force has fallen. In March this year it was 52.7 per cent, whereas in December last year it was 54.4 per cent. In the current economic climate and with the present Federal Labor government policies, the number of women in the work force will continue to fall. The closure of industries with high female participation rates is of great concern. Women comprise more than 70 per cent of the people working in the clothing industry and 55 per cent of those working in the textile and footwear industries.

Many of those industries are centred in country towns, where there are fewer job opportunities and the closure of those industries is having a disastrous flow-on effect in rural Victoria where many small businesses are closing.

It is not necessary to look at the statistics when considering the position of women in Victoria. I do not recall during my lifetime any other period as bad as this recessionary period. Most of us know people who are out of work and who are unable to obtain a job, and many of us have people in our own families who are in that position. This situation has come about as a result of State and Federal Labor government policies. We should not forget that this is the recession that the Federal Treasurer said we had to have!

Those women still in the work force receive less than 80 per cent of the male wage. I refer to a document published by the Department of Labour which lists the average weekly earnings of employees. Unfortunately, although the document has been published only recently, the figures are out of date and relate to May 1990. It is a shame that the document is not published more frequently. It indicates that the average weekly earnings of a full-time female adult was $489.90 a week, whereas the average weekly earnings for a full-time male adult was $612 a week. Women must live and maintain themselves in the same way as men, but they receive a lesser wage and that must affect their quality of life.

I now refer to child care, one of the issues spoken about by the honourable member for Box Hill. I have in my possession documents that I found on my desk in Parliament House yesterday, which are a parents' guide to kindergarten-based child care. The documents consist of a pamphlet, a booklet and a media release, which contains a photograph of the Minister for Community Services. like the Choice and Opportunity Plan, it contains lots of nice things. I am getting sick of the amount of government propaganda that is sent to my Parliament House office and my electorate office. If the money wasted on that material were used in providing services there would be improved services in almost every area, including child care. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1434 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The government's record on child care is not as good as it should be, despite what the honourable member for Box HiII said about the three child-care centres that have opened in Box HilI. In fact, just the other day it was said that Box Hill has good child-care services, but that should be contrasted with the outer suburban areas of Melbourne which do not receive the same services, yet families with young children are settling in those areas.

My claims are supported by a recent study of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which found that child care in suburbs of Melbourne failed to meet Commonwealth standards and that the availability of child care in outer suburbs is well below the New South Wales standards.

The honourable member for Box Hill referred to a number of different issues. She referred to neighbourhood houses. I remind honourable members that the original neighbourhood house program was established by a previous Liberal government and that concept was taken up by this Labor government.

The honourable member for Box Hill referred also to work-based child care. Some progress has been made in the priwte sector, but the possibilities for work-based child care in the public sector have been ignored. In the early 1980s I tried to interest the government in work-based child care for public servants, not on my own account, because my children were not in need of child care at that stage, but on behalf of women working in the Corporate Affairs Office. Officers from the human resources unit were interested in my proposal, but the government showed no interest in establishing public sector child care.

Of course, child care needs cannot be met just in the public sector by the provision of government places, and nor should they. Private child-care centres should be encouraged to provide more places for children and more opportunities for women. It appears that the government is doing everything it can to discourage private child-care ini tia ti ves.

The Home and Opportunity Plan refers to increased funding for kindergartens, yet we now find it is being withdrawn! The government is spending enormous sums in the education and transport sectors, but it has ceased funding toddler groups - three-year-old groups - and extended hours kindergartens, which are important to working mothers. Not all four-year olds have access to kindergartens. Many kindergartens are closing because of lack of funds; in fact, one kindergarten in my electorate will be forced to close.

It is not always possible for a mother to take her child to the other end of the municipality so that the child can attend a kindergarten. Honourable members should consider the situation of a young mother with a new baby, perhaps a toddler, and a kindergarten-aged child. H that young mother does not have access to a car how will she get her kindergarten-aged child to the kindergarten, then have time to go home to feed her baby and return to pick up her kindergarten-aged child? It is virtually impossible for CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1435

a young mother to take her children to kindergarten if one is not close to home, and that is denying many four-year-olds the opportunity of attending kindergarten. Mrs Hirsh - Not in Wantirna! Mrs WADE - Over the past few days the government has blamed everything that has gone wrong on the recession. As soon as anything is raised, that word tumbles out of government members' mouths. They have been attending a seminar on how to answer when asked why everything is closing and failing. The answer to everything is "the recession" . Money is going to waste in this State. The Commonwealth Grants Commission issued figures which demonstrated that the same average services could be provided in Victoria as are provided in other States at a saving of $1.1 billion. There is nothing to suggest the average services in Victoria are any better than the average services in other States, so . Victoria is spending $1.1 billion more than other States are spending on the same services. Victoria's taxes are 11 per cent higher than the average needed by the other States to provide those services so if we did not have this overspending, some of which is being wasted on propaganda materials - although that is only a small part of it - Victorians could be taxed 11 per cent less than they are being taxed at the moment. If we matched Queensland we could save $3.3 billion in expenditure. If Victoria had reduced its spending to the same extent below the States' average as Queensland, in 1989-90 it would have saved $3 billion. That money would have been available to payoff debts and to preserve essential services. Much of the Choice and Opportunity Plan is devoted to options for study and training. The honourable member for Box Hill has referred to plans for a Bill to establish an Adult and Community Further Education Board - ACFEB. All I can say about that is what I have said about other pieces of government paperwork: like policies and press releases, Bills themselves actually achieve nothing; while they may give you a warm inner glow, they do not actually pay the household accounts. Women's participation rates in tertiary institutions are increasing. The honourable member for Box Hill talked about user-friendly courses. I think they are to be encouraged. However, I know of young women being forced to stay in the education system because no jobs are available and that is part of the explanation for a greater participation. It is also unfortunately true that women are not really moving away from the traditional courses they have always undertaken. There is still a very low female participation rate in science and engineering type courses. Where women do undertake more challenging courses they are not rewarded as well as men in those disciplines. I draw the attention of honourable members to a 1990 study undertaken by the Graduate Careers Council of Australia on pay scales for female graduates. That article is reported in the Financial Review of 5 January 1990. The report says that while females averaged higher academic results in virtually all disciplines, they commanded lower pay scales. It CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1436 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

says that the gap in starting salaries between male and female graduates has widened and this is most noticeable in areas such as law, engineering and architecture. Another study by the University of Technology in Sydney found: Salaries in female-dominated professions - including nursing, fashion and textiles, biomedical science and interior design - were depressed relative to others. These issues have not been tackled by either State or Federal governments during the 1980s. An article in the Age of 25 May 1990 describes the problems single mothers have in obtaining education and getting back into the workforce. The convenor of the National Council for the Single Mother and her Child says: The poverty traps have worsened over the past fifteen years because the pension income test has not been indexed. These problems are forcing single parents into poverty traps. That issue should be one of the highest priorities, and in government the coalition will be looking to see what can be done to assist single mothers who want to get back into the work force. Finally, I mention an issue which has been totally ignored in the Choice and Opportunity Plan, which is safety. Women have no choice or opportunity if they are too frightened to go out into some areas to work at certain times of the day. They do not have access to some education and training programs unless they can attend them at night, and women are becoming more and more frightened about venturing out in the evening. I have with me a number of newspaper reports. I will not read them but they have headlines such as ''Victim held to ransom by rapist", reporting the views of the Assistant Commissioner for Police Operations in Victoria. In the Sunday Age is the heading, 'Why this woman no longer feels safe in her city". Another one is 'Women are screaming very loudly but no one is listening" . Another is "Knowing fear is feeling under siege in a ground floor flat at night". Most of these articles would strike a chord with women in this House and in Victoria because they are conscious that they are less safe now than they have been in the past. I should refer to the kidnapping. When I came into the House this morning I heard the most recent reports. The little girl of thirteen has not been found. There is no trace of her. That sort of crime strikes fear into the hearts of all mothers. We have to give a high priority to to fighting crime. The government's first response to these issues was the suggestion by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services of a code of conduct for men. As if that would actually stop someone raping or kidnapping! When that did not go down too well with the Premier he talked about a community awareness campaign and producing materials aimed at reducing women's fear and feeling of victimisation. The government has responded to these serious problems by throwing paper at women. That is absolutely hopeless. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1437

I wrote to the Premier about some very nasty literature that one can buy in local newsagencies. It is very unpleasant material which is directed at teenage boys and young children. There are several publications which all follow the .same sort of line. They are in a comic style and depict young men in pubs and bars and young women as easy sex objects.

I have brought one along with me. It is called "Pissed Up Dan". It depicts a couple of young men at the bar. One says, "Look at that sheila over there. I bet she'll root". The other says, "I reckon I'll chat her up then". He goes over. I will not repeat the language because it is absolutely disgusting. He goes off with the young woman and they are depicted having sexual intercourse. He is then pictured vomiting over the young woman. Then she complains and he says, 'What does she have to complain about?"

The reply I received from the Premier says the material

... may be considered rude or vulgar but not serious enough to warrant classification as category 1 or 2 publications ... under the Classification of Films and Publications Act 1990.

That magazine is currently available to nine-year-old children in newsagents. I do not believe any code of conduct or any other literature provided by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services will do any good while this sort of magazine is available. I ask the Premier to review her position on that.

Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna) - On a point of order, I am most concerned about the nature of the material the honourable member for Kew has referred to and I ask whether she will make it available to the House as I would like to discover more about its source.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - Yes, I will make it available.

The coalition parties place a high priority on individual freedoffiS, rights and responsibilities. We believe individual initiative should be encouraged and we recognise women have not received appropriate recognition for the contribution they make in the work force, in the home or in the community. We will be placing a high value on the skills that women bring to the community and we will give them every opportunity to exercise real choice and to enjoy equality of opportunity in all areas of human endeavour.

We are committed to removing the remaining barriers to ensure increased opportunities for women. We appreciate there are issues of concern to women that do not affect men to the same degree. We are committed to ensuring that a fair allocation of the State's resources is used to meet those needs.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) - The motion moved by the honourable member for Box Hill congratulated the government for the Choice and Opportunity Plan to meet the needs of women who want to return to work and study by making it possible to consider work or study options, by enabling informed choices to be made, and to assist women to learn the necessary skills to find jobs that are convenient and satisfying. CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1438 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The motion is nothing but a sham. I believe the honourable member has been carried away by the rhetoric of government and has failed to acknowledge the reality in the community. The motion spoke about assisting women to learn necessary skills and find jobs that are convenient and satisfying. In today's environment that is living in a dream. Women have an important role to play in the work force. They have an equal but a different way of contributing to society from my view and from my party's point of view. We have absolutely no problem with women competing on an equal basis and we have shown that because of the role women play within our party. We have a female State president and a female national president. We did not have to make opportunities for them because they obtained those positions on merit. They are welcomed if they want to participate but we do not go to the extreme of making nominal places for women. That is demeaning to women and it does not acknowledge their true worth in society. We have had many women candidates. Mrs Garbutt - How many! Mr MAUGHAN - Not too many in this State but if you look around Australia the National Party has as large a proportion of female members who participate in the organisation as any other major party. Women in this State are certainly actively involved in our organisation. There are no barriers to women working to pursue their own interests and careers and there should be no stigma attached to women who choose instead to be wives and mothers. We are concerned about that role in society today: women who choose to be wives and mothers and who do not pursue careers tend to be stigmatised. There is no greater vocation for any woman than to be involved as a family maker. The traditional family unit is the most important building block of our society and women have an important role to play there. In today's society we fail to acknowledge that important role. I congratulate the honourable member for Box Hill for moving this motion on these important issues and for focusing on child-care, employment opportunities and education. However I intend to demonstrate that she has listened too much to the rhetoric of the government and she has not looked to see what is happening in the real community and certainly in rural Victoria. I shall deal firstly with employment opportunities because the motion talks about assisting women to find convenient and satisfying jobs. In today's environment 9.2 per cent are unemployed nationally - that is 750 000 people. I believe the figure is much higher, but it depends on the way the figure is calculated. Many people who would like jobs or are seeking jobs have not been counted in the 750 000 unemployed. This situation has been brought about largely by the Commonwealth government's policies of high interest rates and the lack of macro-economic reform. In Victoria in excess of 200 000 people are unemployed, and as the honourable member for Kew CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Thursday. 18 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1439

pointed out, the unemployment rate has increased more rapidly than in any other State. Last year the rate was 4.4 per cent compared with 3 per cent for the rest of the Commonwealth. The government can do something to stop companies such as the Ford Motor Co. of Aust. Ltd putting off workers in Geelong and companies like Black and Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd - an old established company which produces first-class products but which is not able to compete with imported products - closing and thus causing a loss of jobs. People in the textile industry are losing their jobs every week because employers are not able to compete with products produced interstate and overseas. Old established companies such as Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd at Warmambool, a truly Australian company, may move interstate or even off shore. Many other companies are in exactly. that position. They cannot compete in the current economic environment, for which the government must take responsibility, because of such things as the WorkCare rates that are higher than those of our competitors in New South Wales, payroll tax, land tax, goodwill tax, bed. tax and increased sales taxes. These are matters the government can do something about. There are huge inefficiencies in the transport industry including the port areas, which are causing a lack of economic activity and reduced jobs. They deny the opportunities the honourable member for Box Hill referred to when she spoke about job opportunities. Not only women but also the 200 000 people who are trying to find jobs right now are affected. I feel sorry for young people who are trying to find positions. Only last night I was speaking with a person whose daughter has completed a business studies course and, at this time of the year after many interviews, is still looking for a job. The gentleman told me that of the 24 students in the course with his daughter only 5 have been able to secure positions. That is the story across the State: young people who have completed tertiary education are finding it extremely difficult to get jobs. It is ridiculous for the honourable member for Box Hill to talk about a person finding a job that is convenient and satisfying. I shall speak briefly about the problems of women in rural Victoria. Women certainly have difficulty getting jobs in the community generally, but the situation in rural Victoria is much worse. Farming industries are currently under tremendous pressure through significant declines in the wool, wheat and dairy industries. There are substantial decreases in returns to farmers in every industry and at the same time the cost of fuel, labour, spare parts and so on are rapidly increasing. Farmers are caught in the price squeeze and many of them are being forced out of business. Women play an important role in the farming industry; not only do they join in the physical work by assisting their husbands and families to keep their farms viable but they also provide moral support. In many cases they do the book work and an increasing number of women are becoming involved in agri-politics. Women who have been prepared to be wives, mothers and helpers on the farms but who are sick and tired of CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY PLAN

1440 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

what is going on are taking active roles in agro-politics, and I encourage that trend. In my electorate three notable women have played important roles in that area: Rosemary Scott is actively involved in the water protest meetings; Lynett Griffiths, a former neighbour of mine, is actively involved in agri-politics in the dairy industry; and Carmen Shroen is involved in Victorian Dairyfarmers Union and Victorian Farmers Federation activities. I am concerned at the high level of unemployment among young people and women. It is virtually impossible for women who do not have a high level of training to get jobs in country Victoria. Those women who are trained as teachers or nurses or those who have secretarial skills and are being forced to go back to work to support the family farm are obviously displacing younger members of the community who want jobs but cannot get them. Many woman forced back into the work force are denying younger people the opportunities of getting jobs, and that has long-term consequences. It must be demoralising for a well-trained young person to have to look for a job for up to eighteen months. One can understand how demoralising it would be for such a person to find that no jobs are available. The honourable member for Box Hill also spoke about the importance of education, and I agree with her about that. Education is critical to our survival, and I agree with the Prime Minister's rhetoric about the need for Australia to become a clever country. Unfortunately, the Federal government has done nothing to put in place the means for people to help Australia become a clever country. Education in rural Victoria suffers from the tyranny of distance and a lack of adequate opportunities for young people. The government is tightening the school bus policy and is restricting the opportunities for many secondary school students to go to the schools of their choice. As the honourable member for Kew pointed out, the government has failed to honour its promise on the education expense allowance. Although the situation is bad enough for people in the metropolitan area, the allowance made a critical difference in country areas because it had been extremely important in helping young people to obtain a reasonable education. I shall speak briefly about the importance of community education. I agree with the honourable member for Box Hill because she said it was a previously undervalued sector. That is true, but it is still grossly undervalued. The amount of money going into community education in relation to the services it delivers is pitiful. Many people give of their time to provide educational opportunities. In Echuca community education does a wonderful job and has provided many opportunities for women to return to the work force, particularly in the hospitality industry. Echuca is fortunate to have such natural advantages as the River Murray and the historic port area. The town has a viable tourist industry, and community education has done a marvellous job in training people to be able to accept employment opportunities in the hospitality industry and the secretarial area. COMMISSIONER fOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL

Thursday. 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1441

The University of the Third Age is also an important educational opportunity in country Victoria, and 1 pay tribute to the role the university plays. The honourable member for Box Hill referred to the training of Koori women in Echuca. I have been sympathetic to the cause of Koori women, but this government has failed to capitalise on opportunities. It has provided training for those women but they are unable to utilise their skills because they cannot get jobs. It is a sham to talk about increasing opportunities for jobs. People in my electorate who wish to further their education find they are not eligible for Austudy grants, child-care or travel allowances because they are married, their husbands work and they have families. If a woman is a single mother or is living in a de facto relationship, she probably qualifies for the various concessions. However, if a woman is in a traditional family and has a husband with a reasonably well-paid job, she must bear the cost of education herself. In the case of one of my constituents, she must bear the cost of travelling 70 kilometres to Bendigo twice a week simply to improve her education and therefore her employment opportunities. That is a tremendous burden to bear for a family on a normal wage. The motion is a sham; the State has an unacceptable level of unemployment and it is almost entirely due to government policy at Commonwealth and State levels. If the government had concentrated more on micro-economic reform, the State would have the employment and educational opportunities to which the honourable member for Box Hill referred. Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended 1.1 p.m. until 2.3 p.m.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL Second reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. There can be no doubt of the great importance Victorians now give to conservation and to environmental quality. Across the spectrum in the community, people are calling for more action by government to protect the environment and remedy the problems created by past inaction. During the past decade many major programs have been introduced to improve air and water quality, protect endangered species and preserve important natural areas within greatly expanded national parks. The portfolio of conservation and environment has grown to be one of the largest in the Victorian public sector and virtually every other public sector agency also has environmental activities relating to their own responsibilities. In this context the time has come to establish an independent and

77825/91-47 COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL

1442 ASSEMBLY Thmsday, 18 April 1991

effective voice to report on the state of the Victorian environment and to analyse the long-term trends. This Bill provides such a mechanism through the establishment of the statutory position of Commissioner for the Environment with responsibility to report impartially to the Victorian community on environmental matters. This position has been modelled on the position of deputy ombudsman but its scope is more general. Rather than seek to adjudicate local disputes the position is intended to provide a long-term framework to guide successive governments about the overall impact of environmental programs. Our ability to manage resources within the ecological bounds of environmental sustainability depends on appropriate data about how we use the environment. Without detailed knowledge of the physical implications of our actions, we may reap the benefits of these resources but our children will inherit the losses.

The major task of the environmental commissioner is the production of independent state of the environment reports. State of the environment reporting ensures public awareness of actions which will minimise environmental damage and reduce future environmental and economic costs. It is also an aid for assessing whether resources currently spent on environmental management are deployed in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The purpose of the state of the environment report is to accurately:

identify environmental trends and conditions, and report on their impact on the environment and people; identify deficiencies in the collection of environmental data; raise public awareness of critical environmental trends and issues by providing information in a readily understandable form; identify key issues which, in the opinion of the commissioner, require further attention by government.

The range of issues to be considered can be very broad but an overview is essential to ensure programs by different agencies are being properly coordinated. Where comments are made on programs of a particular agency, that agency will be required to respond in its next annual report. Each state of the environment report will also include comment on actions taken by public sector agencies in response to recommendations in previous reports. Through such a process it will ensure that the public is aware of effective responses to the environmental problems and issues previously identified by the commissioner.

Internationally, over the past decade, state of the environment reports have emerged as a powerful means for publicising information about environmental conditions and trends to the public and to policy makers. The use of such reports is generally accepted overseas. Occurring in a variety of forms, national reports have been produced by governments in France, Japan, and the United States and, notably, in Canada. COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1443

There are international precedents for this legislation; for instance, in New Zealand, the establishment under legislation of the position of Parliamentary commissioner for the environment, whose tasks include production of special reports to Parliament. In Australia, two national state of the environment reports have been published. State reports have now also been published in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The importance of adequate environmental auditing is now widely recognised, and public demand for thiS type of reporting is growing. In 1986 the government appointed a part-time, non-statutory Commissioner for the Environment and commenCed a state of the environment reporting program for Victoria. Mr David Scott, Chairman of the Land Conservation Council, was appointed the first Commissioner for the EnVTironment. In the same year Victoria's first state of the environment report was produced. In 1989, the commissioner published his first major theme report, a detailed study of the environmental condition of Victoria's rivers and streams, its lakes and wetlands, and its drinking water. This significant report provided the first comprehensive overview of environmental trends in this sector of the environment. It identified a need for better information and proposed key indicators for monitoring our inland waters. The report focused attention on how few of our rivers and streams have remained undamaged by human influence and how extensive this damage - including erosion, water pollution and the vulnerability to extinction of native fish species - now is. It highlights how much work remains to be done on drinking water quality for the State's rural population. In conjunction with a subsequent interdepartmental review of aquatic monitoring, this report has enabled the government to determine the appropriate monitoring effort for this State's aquatic environments. It added impetus to the revision of health regulations and requirements for reporting by rural water boards, to address the issues of water quality for country Victorians. This report has been well received interstate and internationally, and commented upon favourably for its scope and rigour. This year, the commissioner will publish his second report on the environmental impacts of agriculture. These reports provide us with a firm baseline for future environmental monitoring and assessment. The time has now come to consolidate the office's work and to expand its functions and resources. One fundamental reason for this legislation is to assure the public of the independence and impartiality of the work of the commissioner. For this reason, the Bill establishes the commissioner's position as reporting to Parliament through the Minister for Conservation and Environment and requires a government response to special reports within six months. A second reason for the Bill is to empower the commissioner, in a manner appropriate to the functions and roles which are necessary for effective environmental auditing. The FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES PENALTIES) BILL

1444 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991 experience of the past four years indicates that the commissioner needs clear and effective powers if the objective of coordination of public sector agencies is to be achieved. By requiring regular reports and responses to the comments made in those reports the public will have assurance that the broad environmental sector is being adequately scrutinised and is properly accountable. A third reason is the need to have alternative viewpoints considered and assessed - particularly in the interpretation of environmental monitoring data. In a number of recent cases the interpretation of mOnitoring data has been questioned by someone in the community on the basis that the collectors of the data have an inherent interest in the way the data is presented to the public. The independence of the commissioner will provide an unbiased umpire who can give a fair assessment of the facts to the public. This will mean on the one hand that alarmist views can be put in context and on the other hand that self-serving views put by authorities can be exposed. There are a number of operational provisions in the Bill which give effect to these intentions and they are detailed in the notes on clauses. I believe this is a Bill for the 1990s - and like a number of earlier pieces of environmental legislation introduced in Victoria is destined to be copied by other States. I am proud to have the opportunity to introduce the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COLEMAN (Syndal).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 2 May.

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES PENALTIES) BILL Second reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: TIlat this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is intended to change the nature of the penalty provided in the Fisheries Act in relation to convictions for a third offence for taking or possessing abalone in contravention of the Act, the regulations or a fisheries notice. At present for a third or subsequent offence relating to abalone the abalone licence is cancelled and the licence­ holder is disqualified from obtaining an abalone licence for a period of not less than twelve months. Members will be aware that the abalone fishery is an important industry producing a commodity earning valuable export income for Australia. licences, which are RENTAL BOND BOARD BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1445

transferable, are sold for amounts in excess of $1 million, and this is a reflection of the high gross incomes earned by divers. In 1989 the government, in response to industry wishes, amended the Fisheries Act to recognise the collateral value of commercial fishing licences. This enabled fishermen to obtain finance on more favourable terms and also provided some measure of protection to persons or institutions lending money to fishermen. However lending institutions have raised concerns about accepting as collateral an abalone licence which may at some time in the future be cancelled by a court order as a result of the licence-holder being convicted of a third abalone-related offence. The abalone industry has also made representations to the government to the effect that the cancellation provisions in the Fisheries Act if acted upon would place a financial penalty on the diver of an amount in present-day licence values of $1.3 million. Any reasonable person would agree that a penalty of this nature would be grossly excessive.

In view of these considerations the government has agreed to amend the Act to remove the abalone licence cancellation provisions and to substitute a mechanism whereby the holder of an abalone licence convicted of a third offence would be prohibited from diving for abalone and is given six months from the date of the court order to transfer the licence to another person.

If the holder of the licence does not comply with the order the licence is forfeited to the director-general. In addition to the penalty outlined the transfer fee for the compulsory transfer of the licence is twice the amount applicable in a normal transfer arrangement. The amendments proposed in the Bill will assist the abalone industry and give a measure of confidence to institutions providing finance to abalone divers. The Bill is not intended to confer any property rights on abalone divers as this is contrary to the policies of the government.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COLEMAN (Syndal).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 2 May.

RENTAL BOND BOARD BILL Second reading Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. The government has received numerous submissions in recent times requesting the establishment of a rental bond board. RENTAL BOND BOARDBaL

1446 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Why do we need a rental bond board? Approximately 20 per cent of Victoria's population is housed in rental accommodation which comprises houses, flats, caravans and rooming houses. Over the last 30 years Australian landlords have tended to require their tenants to pay bonds as security in case the tenant breaches the tenancy agreement. The residential tenancies legislation sets out requirements for landlords taking bonds. However there are problems with this system. Under the current system landlords are required to lodge tenants' bonds in trust accounts in approved financial institutions. If at the end of a tenancy a landlord wishes to retain any part of the bond for any purpose other than rental arrears, the landlord must make application to the tribunal. Unfortunately the current system with landlords in control of the money leads to non-compliance. At present it is virtually impossible to identify the number of bonds held in Victoria and as a result the Ministry of Consumer Affairs is unable effectively to enforce compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act with regard to bonds. Similarly, there is no way for a tenant to check whether his or her bond has been lodged. We are sure some bonds are not being deposited in trust accounts according to the Act but finding the offenders is often like looking for a needle in a haystack. Ministry of Consumer Affairs trust account data shows that, of the bond money lodged according to the Act, only 2 to 5 per cent represents money lodged by private landlords - the balance is lodged by real estate agents. Whereas the New South Wales bond board tells us that private landlords account for the lodgement of 14 per cent of their bonds. Our own surveys lead us to believe that private landlords represent a similar proportion of the market in Victoria to that indicated by the New South Wales Rental Bond Board. In other words it would appear that at least 9 per cent of total bond money is not being deposited. If the bond board can pick up this extra money from people who are currently evading the Act - and it would be reasonable to expect that it could - that could account for an extra $7 million this year! This is in addition to the better investment opportunities which will be available to the bond board by having all the moneys in the one place compared with the current fragmented system of funds in individual trust accounts. The real benefit of the proposed system will be in the capacity of this independent board to provide secure custody for the bond moneys and a quick return of the bond to the tenant in compliance with the Act. There will be other benefits of a bond board. It is intended to index bond moneys so that the value of the bond will be maintained. Landlords will also receive a benefit from this proposed legislation. Should a tenant breach the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord will be able to make application for compensation up to the increased value of the bond. This is set out in Division 2 of Part 4.

It is also intended to utilise the surplus to provide socially desirable projects, for example to fund housing projects and support services. This is set out in Part 3 of the Bill. RENTAL BOND BOARD BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1447

The Bill does not alter the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. It is concerned with establishing a Rental Bond Board and a Tenancy and Residency Fund providing for payment of bonds in and out to the board, and for the investment of bonds held. The purpose of the board, the definitions and the commencement date - which is to be proclaimed - are set out in Part 1. It should be noted that this proposed Act is to be read as one with the Residential Tenancies Act. Part 2 establishes the board as a body corporate with five members and a chairperson. The members will be representative of the relevant areas of government; namely, the Department of Treasury, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Planning and Housing, and provision is made for a member nominated by each of the main user organisations; that is, the Tenants Union of Victoria and the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (RElY). Part 3 establishes the Tenancy and Residency Fund and various accounts, and outlines the financial operations. This part provides for payments by the board for the administration of the residential tenancies legislation including the costs of administering the board and the tribunal, and for the surplus to be expended at the joint direction of the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Minister administering the Housing Act 1983. Instead of the present system where the surplus funds can only accumulate, the Act will allow the surplus to be allocated in accordance with guidelines being developed but generally: to fund community based tenancy advice services; to fund housing projects and support services; and to index the bond to preserve its value. The board's investment powers will be limited to those provided in guidelines outlined by the Treasurer. This is usual government procedure. This proposed legislation also makes the board responsible for managing the fund so that the return is optimised having regard to the need to ensure the cash flow requirements of the board. The board will be subject to usual auditing and accounting provisions and will have to provide an annual rerort. In this case the RElY was concerned that the board should include in its annual report sufficient information and statistical reports to enable consumers to measure both the performance of the board and the Ministry of Consumer Affair in operating the Rental Bond Board. I give them my assurance that this will be required even though it is not specified in the legislation. Part 4 sets out the requirements for paying bonds into the board and for the paying out , of bonds. It is important that the bond should be returned to the tenant as soon as possible. At present too many people have trouble getting bonds back quickly. There are examples of landlords - and even agents in some instances - who have delayed the return of the bonds and have retained all or portion of the bond moneys to cover costs of, for example, carpet shampooing and cleaning, and so on, which should not be deducted from the bond. There have also been cases where tenants have not been able to get their money back because the landlords cannot be found or the properties have changed hands and the new landlords have no knowledge of the original bonds. ~ALBONDBOARDBaL

1448 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The board will distribute information to both tenants and landlords setting out their rights to claim on the board. This process combined with the board's own promotional activities will ensure: only legitimate claims are made; and both tenants and landlords are fully aware of the requirements to lodge bonds with the board. The expectations of the tenants that the bonds will be lodged with the board and that they will be fully notified is a key enforcement procedure that has worked in New South Wales and Queensland. At present the Queensland Bond Board receives from tenants eight calls a day notifying of failures of landlords to lodge the bonds properly. However the experience in other States where there are bond boards shows that in New South Wales, bonds are refunded within 11 minutes for counter applications and in 4.5 days for postal applications. In Queensland the Australia Post agency system allows for the return of bonds within 20 minutes of lodgement of an undisputed application at any Australia Post fax office. I expect that a Victorian board could meet the standards of performance in Queensland through a similar agency arrangement. Landlords need not worry! There will be strict control over automatic pay-outs and any matters in dispute will still be referred to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. However, the experience in other States has shown that there has been a marked decrease in bond disputes since the establishment of bOnd boards. Part 5 is the usual provision allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations. The amendments required to the Residential Tenancies Act 1980, the Caravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Act 1988, and the Rooming Houses Act 1990 are set out in Parts 6,7 and 8 respectively. Transitional provisions are set out in Part 9. In effect this gives six months for landlords who currently have bonds lodged in trust accounts to make arrangements to close the accounts and deposit the money with the bond board. The Rental Bond Board Bill contains a number of other matters which I suggest honourable members should consider. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, draft proposals for a Bill to establish a Rental Bond Board were circulated in January; comments were received from a number of community organisations including churches, and members of Parliament representing all parties have indicated their support. Mr Richardson - Don't bet on it! Mr McCUTCHEON - Since then the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has been involved in constructive dialogue with the Tenants Union of Victoria and the RElY. The Minister for Consumer Affairs has taken note of the many comments in the submissions received when preparing this Bill. WATILE PARK LAND BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1449

As soon as the Bill has passed through Parliament it is intended to establish an implementation committee to consider these matters and the other matters associated with the smooth setting up of the board. The practitioners in the residential tenancies area - for example, the Tenants Union of Victoria, the REIV and the financial institutions - will be invited to participate with government officers in such a committee.

In conclusion I note that the establishment of a Rental Bond Board in Victoria will bring Victoria into line with most other States of Australia and will create a fair and equitable system for the collection, management and disbursement of bond moneys paid by residents or tenants. For the reasons I have outlined today, as well as for other reasons, I have much pleasure in introducing the Rental Bond Board Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I thank the Minister for his very lucid second reading and I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 2May. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, I cannot envisage a circumstance where we would want more than two weeks as an adjournment period but a number of organisations must be contacted.

In the event we are delayed and if extra time is needed I ask the Minister if he will take that into account and, if necessary, extend beyond the two weeks. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing)(By leave) - I am happy to negotiate if more time is needed. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday, 2 May.

WATILE PARK LAND BILL Second reading Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the transfer of Wattle Park from the Public Transport Corporation to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. WATTLEPARKLANDB~L

1450 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Wattle Park is a major park well known and well loved by generations of Melburnians. It is located wholly within the aty of Box Hill but its reputation and use extends well beyond the boundaries of that municipality.

The park has a most interesting history dating back to 1915. In 1914 the Hawthorn Tramways Trust was established under the Melbourne to Burwood Tramways Act 1914. The following year the Melbourne to Burwood Tramways Act 1915 (No.2) enabled the lands forming Wattle Park to be purchased and used for the purposes of a park. This land was then acquired in 1916. In 1919 the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Act established the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board (MMTB) and absorbed the Hawthorn Tramways Trust along with four other tramways trusts. Wattle Park was transferred to the MMTB and the initial 1914 park trust over the lands comprising the park was continued. This trust has been perpetuated through successive legislative changes relating to the creation and abolition of the various transport authorities in which the park has been vested.

The transport authorities have continued to manage and maintain Wattle Park over the years. The Public Transport Corporation is the present owner of the park which is still subject to the park trust.

The government is concerned to see that Wattle Park remains as a major park for the future enjoyment of the people of Melbourne. It has previously made this clear in the Metropolitan Open Space Plan released by the government in 1988. However in that plan attention was drawn to the somewhat anomalous situation of the management of such a park by a transport authority and indicated that this would be reviewed.

Apart from the important historic links which the park has with Melbourne's tramway system, the park has been the venue for concerts given by the Melbourne Metropolitan Transit Band. Nonetheless, the management and maintenance of a major park is not seen as an appropriate function for a corporation whose purpose it is to provide and coordinate public transport for the State. Over recent years it has become apparent that the Public Transport Corporation does not have the expertise to manage and maintain the park to the extent that the community expects.

The government has therefore decided to transfer the park to the Board of Works. Already the board has established an excellent record of managing major parks through its metropolitan parks plan. Previously it has played a role in assisting the Public Transport Corporation to review the management of Wattle Park. The board is well placed to take over this open space facility and ensure that it provides enjoyment for future generations of park lovers.

In considering the future management of Wattle Park, the Board of Works will consult closely with those individuals and organisations that have a particular interest in the park. They will include the City of Box Hill, the Public Transport Corporation and the various organisations that will want to ensure that the park continues to have a link with Melbourne's tramway history. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) Bll.,L

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1451

A condition of the sale of the land comprising Wattle Park to the Hawthorn Tramways Trust was that the land would be retained as a park, thus providing enjoyment to generations of park users. That condition has always been honoured. The Bill will ensure its continuation as a park but at the same time provide more appropriately for its future management. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjowned on motion of Mr COOPER (Momington).

Debate adjowned until Thursday, 2 May.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENTI BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The Medical Board of Victoria is the most senior of the health registration boards in this State. Its origin can be traced back to legislation enacted in 1862 to confer on medical practitioners the right to use the title "Doctor". The Medical Practitioners Act 1970 specifies that the board is to consist of nine members, all of whom must be legally qualified medical practitioners. Despite the substantial increases that have occurred in the workload of the board, and the changes in community attitudes, the constitution of the board has remained unaltered for some 85 years. The primary purpose of the Bill is to add two non-medical members to the board. One of the new members is to be a lay member. Honourable members will be aware that, for a number of years, the board has recommended in its annual report that: In addition to the present nine legally qualified medical practitioners, two persons not being medical graduates should be appointed to represent the interests of consumers of medical services. The need for, and value of, lay representation on registration boards has been canvassed in a number of recent reports. These include the review of registration for health practitioners, and the principles for occupational regulation published by the Regulation Review Unit. Suffice to say that the appointment of a lay member will provide a means of ensuring that the interests of the public are taken into account in decisions made by the board. Rather than appoint a second lay member at this time, it is proposed that the other non-medical member be a lawyer. The board, of course, has a quasi-judicial role. The appointment to the board of a member with legal expertise will be of value to the board, MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

1452 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

especially in carrying out its disciplinary functions as well as guiding the board in the observance of the rules of natural justice. The opportunity of the Bill is being taken to make a number of other changes to the Medical Practitioners Act. I particularly highlight three: the proposed amendment to section 9; the insertion of a number of new provisions relating to doctors who may be physically or mentally ill; and proposed new section 17C. The first change, to section 9, addresses the problem of doctors defeating disciplinary proceedings instituted by the board in relation to their activities by allowing their registrations to lapse, and then subsequently applying for reregistration with their records unblemished. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the board to take into account the earlier conduct of a person as a medical practitioner, despite the fact that a disciplinary inquiry could not be completed. This will be achieved by empowering the board to refuse an application for registration from a person who is, in the opinion of the board, lIunfit to be registered". However, before refusing an application, the board must first hold an inquiry into the matter and, of course, the applicant retains a right of appeal to the Supreme Court under section 11 if the application is refused.

The second change, ~e proposed insertion of new sections 18B to 18H inclusive, will provide a more sympathetic and less draconian alternative to the current provisions of the Act dealing with sick medical practitioners. Section 18 of the Act currently requires the board to hold a formal inquiry before any action can be taken in relation to a doctor who is physically or mentally unwell. The new provisions will, in lieu, enable the doctor to reach an agreement With an assessor appointed by the board either to limit his or her practice, or to stop practising, or to receive treatment from an approved medical practitioner, or any combination of these, in appropriate cases. The third change, the insertion of proposed new section 17C, is designed to enable the registration of a medical practitioner to be suspended, or his or her name to be removed from the medical register, if similar action has been taken in some other State or Territory. The new section will obviate the need for a duplicate inquiry to be held by the Medical Board of Victoria when an inquiry equivalent to one that could have been held under section 17 of the Act has already been conducted elsewhere. It remains for me only to add that the Medical Practitioners Act is currently being reviewed by a working party chaired by Or Ian Siggins. While the board and the working party, on which the Australian Medical Association is represented, have been closely consulted during the framing of this legislation, the additional appointments proposed by the Bill should not be construed as prejudicing any recommendations regarding the future structure of the board or other matters that may be proposed as a result of the review. On this note, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WEIDEMAN (Franks ton South). VICTORIAN RELIEF COMMfITEE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1453

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 2 May.

VICTORIAN RELIEF COMMITIEE (AMENDMENT) BILL Message from Council relating to amendments considered. Council's amendments: 1. Oause 5, lines 11 and 12, omit "guidelines detennined by the Minister under section SA" and insert "the regulations". 2. Oause 5, line 14, omit "referred to in the guidelines" and insert "prescribed by the regulations" . 3. Oause 6, omit this clause. 4. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 5: 'AA Amendment of section 8 (1) In section 8(1) of the Principal Act, after paragraph (c) insert - "(ca) the time and manner of sale of commodities or other goods collected by the Committee in accordance with section 5; and (cb) the classes of commodities or other goods that may be sold; and". (2) After section 8(1) of the Principal Act, insert- 1/(2) A sale in good faith or purported sale in good faith of commodities or other goods under section 5 is not void by reason only of non-compliance with the regulations. (3) Regulations made under this Act may be disallowed in whole or in part by resolution of either House of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 6(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962 (4) Disallowance of a regulation under sub-section (3) must be taken to be disallowance by Parliament for the purposes of the Subordinate ugislation Act 1962.".' Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: TIlat the amendments be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL Committee Resumed from 14 March; further discussion of clause 2. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: 1. Oause 3, omit this clause. FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

1454 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

This clause should be omitted to enable a new clause to be inserted, which I shall do after this amendment is dealt with. Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - Considerable public debate has occurred on clause 3 as it appears in the Bill. The debate has continued for a long time, stretching right back to the spring sessional period. During the course of discussion on this matter there have been a number of meetings with the department, the Minister, and the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation. The Abalone Subcommittee of the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation put a position paper to the government which set out what the industry believed were equitable ways of dealing with the issue of the significant increase in abalone licence transfer fees from $10000 to $50 000, or 5 per cent of the sale price. In the position paper submitted in January this year, the federation made the following comments: It is pertinent to note the industry position as articulated in a position paper on this and related issues, dated 6 February, 1990. That is, some twelve months before: In that paper (extracts of which are enclosed as Attachment Two) the industry argued that transfer fees and "property" rights were (and still are) interrelated. . The basics of the industry's argument are contained in proposals Two and Three of the paper which involved: . the application of a transfer and stamp duty fee identical to that applied to property transfers, with an undertaking that the industry not be subject to double taxation in the event of the (then) goodwill tax being passed; and the establishment o( a formal register of fishing rights, similar to a property register conferring upon the prescribed parties (licenceholders and financial interests) security and title in the licence similar to that given under the registration of land. In opposing the then proposals the industry argued that the application of the fixed fee element ($50 (xx» did not allow for any collapse in transfer prices and that the then proposed arrangements could result in double taxation in the event that the goodwill tax was introduced. The industry did not oppose the 5 per cent fee, provided it was levied as a stamp duty. This and the proposal for a property register was seen as not only meeting industry needs (and satisfying the Amold recommendation in this area) for the affirmation of access rights as mortgageable property rights but equally importantly as facilitating the application of the ad valorem fee of 5 per cent of licence sale price: the application of the ad valorem fee had reportedly been seen by the department as posing administrative difficulties. That was the position of the industry. In essence, it is not unhappy about the payment of the 5 per cent or the $50 ()()(), or a figure of that order; but the industry wants something that its members are able to hand to the bank as collateral. In introducing another Bill dealing with the abalone industry a short while ago, the Minister again referred to the government's position and its desire to participate fully in this industry so that it can generate revenue. That is based on the government's perception of the wealth of the industry. The opposition argues that, to remove the suspicion about finance being available from some sort of nefarious source, the industry needs to have within the system an FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

Thmsday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1455

instrument of some sort of value that can be produced as a negotiable instrument, taken to the Stamps Office and stamped, and handed as collateral to those providing finance. The reputation that the industry has, incorrectly in my view, is that the funding for the operation is drawn from some sector outside the normal financing/banking sector. Of course, that will be the outcome if the banking sector is not able to be presented with a document which will stand full scrutiny and which satisfies the bank as to its validity in cases of misuse of that licence. The Minister has introduced a Bill in this House today which begins to address that issue; it will be the subject of a subsequent debate. The Minister is proposing to omit clause 3 of the Bill and to replace it with a proposed new clause, as set out in his second amendment. The Minister ought to be aware that there is a general agreement that a fee should be payable and the industry is anxious to get to the position of resolving this matter which has continued for some considerable time. The Victorian Fishing Industry Federation wrote to the Minister on 4 April. It is clear that the industry had had an opportunity to discuss the matter, and it made comment in the following terms:

Thank you for meeting the VFIF and representatives of the Abalone Subcommittee on 20 March to discuss the proposed abalone transfer Bill and seeking our views on this important issue. On behalf of the subcommittee I would like to confirm our understanding of the essence of the range of issues discussed. There was a general appreciation and understanding of the ambient of the Stamps Act and the appropriateness in applying the Act (which would require the disclosure of the value of the property transferred) to the transfer of abalone licences. It was noted oowever, that the use of the Stamps Act in this regard may lead to problems in the ''hypothecation'' of funds to the department. Essentially what the Minister has been arguing is that the revenue generated from the FIsheries Act somehow applies to the Deparbnent of Conservation and Environment, and the revenue generated through the Stamps Act goes into consolidated revenue. It was my understanding that that was not occurring, but there seems to be a suggestion now that that is the case and that there is hypothecation of funds within the department. The recent introduction of the Water (Mineral Water) Bill, which contains a provision for the hypothecation of funds, gives the lie to some of those claims. The letter continues:

As you would recall, industry indicated that for this substantial increase in transfer fees to be acceptable, it would also have to be accompanied simultaneously by clear and unequiVocal resource security rights. This has always been the industry's position. Personally, I believe the industry's position on this particular issue is not unreasonable. The letter goes on to deal with another matter concerning a review. It is clear that the industry is seeking through this process a resource security right attached to the 20-tonne quota, which is the limit in Victoria. FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

1456 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The industry wants a licence for access to resources together with an instrument that gives it both continuity and the right to trade the quota applied by the deparbnent. The Minister understands the proposition, but as things stand he seems unable to get around the question of hypothecation. Therefore we should try to negotiate a solution that meets what the industry sees as a fair way of settling the ma~r. The opposition has no objection to the omission of clause 3. Cause negatived.

New clause Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: 2. After clause 2 insert the following new clause: "AA. Impost on transfer of abalone licences For section 13A(9) of the Fisheries Act 1968 substitute - "(9) The Director-General must not transfer a declared abalone licence or a new abalone licence unless there is paid to the Director-General in respect of the licence to be transferred an impost- (a) of $50 000 for the period ending 31 March 1992; or (b) calculated in accordance with the following formula for the year rommencing 1 April 1992 and in each subsequent year: Yx 2711.5 where- Y means the average beach price of abalone for the financial year immediately preceding year X; Year X means the year commencing 1 April in respect of which the abalone licence is to be transferred. (9A) If any duty is payable under the Stamps Act 1958 in respect of the transfer of an abalone licence, the amount of that duty must be deducted from the amount of impost payable under this Act in respect of the transfer of the abalone licence. ".". The honourable member for Syndal has addressed some of the matters raised in the new clause. After a meeting with abalone divers subsequent to the Bill last being debated in the House I believed I had met the concerns they expressed about a number of matters we discussed. The first was that although the $50 000 transfer fee was seen by them as being not unreasonable considering the value of abalone today, they were concerned that if in the future the price of abalone drops the value of the fee should be expressed in a form that takes that into account, as is the case with the annual licence fee. I acceded to that request and as a result the equation in the amendment includes the figure of 2711.5 times the average beach price of abalone. Mr Evans interjected. Mr CRABB - It is a very precise number, as I am sure the honourable member will appreciate. I believe that meets the divers' concerns about their being insulated against FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) I;ILL

ThW"Sday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1457

any disadvantages that might flow from the price of abalone diminishing some time in the future.

Their second issue of concern was their fear of being taxed twice, once under the Bill and once under another Bill on the Notice Paper concerning the payment of stamp duty on goodwill. As I said earlier, in the Stamps (Amendment) Bill a provision will be inserted to effectively exempt divers from stamp duty to the extent that they pay the transfer duty contained in this Bill. It is just as easy to include a similar measure in this Bill as in the other Bill, and it may be just as well to have it in both, which is why proposed new subsection 13A(9 A) says that if any duty is payable under the Stamps Act in respect of the transfer of an abalone licence, the amount of that duty must be deducted from the amount of the impost payable under this Act. In other words, it entirely removes the capacity for abalone divers to be double taxed.

A third matter they raised has been addressed by the honourable member for Syndal. The divers are concerned about the future of their investment in the licence. Given that they pay more than $1 million for the licences they are right to be concerned about security.

A diver who is convicted of an offence under the abalone section of the Fisheries Act has to surrender the licence to the director-general- in other words, it does not belong to anyone. I introduced a measure earlier today to ensure that an abalone diver who loses his or her licence - I do not think anyone ever has - would be required to transfer it to someone else. In other words, it would have to be transferred to someone else within a reasonable time at double the transfer fee. That seems a more reasonable proposition and will enable divers to be secure in the knowledge that whatever circumstances might arise they will be able to sell their licences rather than having them taken away if they have been sufficiently naughty to offend three times.

I believe the amendment meets the three concerns raised by the abalone divers. However I would not be averse to a meeting with divers if there is some aspect of the measures I have adopted that somehow I have misunderstood; but I believe I have conscientiously addressed the concerns raised by the divers.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - It is obvious that the Minister has taken an interest in these matters and has endeavoured to deal with the concerns expressed by the industry. Had the Bill been passed during the spring session last year it would not have run foul of the opposition's current strategy with respect to increases in fees. Because the Bill lifts the fees from $10 000 to $50 000, which represents a significant increase in income for the government, it breaches the clear strategy of the opposition, which is understood by the government. Therefore, notwithstanding the offers of the Minister in this respect, the opposition will vote against the clause.

Committee divided on new clause: FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

1458 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Ayes, 43 Andrlanopoulos, Mr Hill,Mrs Sandon,Mr Baker,Mr Hirsh, Mrs Sercombe, Mr (Teller) Barker,Mrs Jolly,Mr Setches, Mrs Batche1or, Mr Kennan, Mr Sheehan, Mr AJ. Cain,Mr Kennedy,Mr Sheehan, Mr F.P. Cole,Mr Kirner,Ms Shell, Mr Crabb,Mr LEighton, Mr Simmonds, Mr Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Spyker,Mr Dollis, Mr (Teller) McDonald, Mr Thomson,Mr Emst,Mr Mathews,Mr Trezise,Mr Fordham,Mr Micallef, Mr Vaughan,Dr Garbu~Mrs Pope,Mr Walsh,Mr Gavin,Mr Ray,Mrs Wilson,Mrs Hamilton, Mr Roper,Mr Harrowfie1d, Mr Rowe,Mr

Noes, 37 Austin,Mr Honeywood, Mr Plowman,Mr Bildstien, Mr (Teller) Jasper, Mr Reynolds, Mr Brown,Mr John,Mr Richardson, Mr Clark,Mr LEigh,Mr Smith, Mr E.R Coleman,Mr McGrath, Mr J.F. Smith, Mr I.W. Cooper,Mr McGrath, Mr W.D. Steggall, Mr Delzoppo, Mr Maclellan, Mr Stockdale, Mr Dickinson, Mr Maughan,Mr Tanner,Mr Elder,Mr Napthine, Or Wade,Mrs Evans,Mr Perrin,Mr waUace, Mr (Teller) Gude,Mr Perton,Mr Weideman, Mr Hayward,Mr Pescott,Mr Wells, Or Heffernan, Mr New clause agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments.

Report adopted. Third reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) - I watched with interest the passing of the Bill through this Chamber. Honourable members would be aware that the Bill was before Parliament in the spring session last year and, for some reason, it was held over until now. The opposition has opposed the Bill because it does not meet with its strategy. A high price has been paid because of the inefficiency of the government in Treasury matters. I hope the cOlnments I am about to make will be of some assistance to this industry in the future. I believe the Minister has a wonderful opportunity of understanding and FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1459

studying the illegal activities currently raging along the coastline of Victoria. Although I am aware of a review taking place, I am also aware that it will take some eighteen months. By that time the abalone industry of this State may be beyond recall. The seabeds around the southern coast of Victoria are being ravaged. Enforcement officers, who are highly trained and efficient, are frustrated because they lack the authority to carry out their jobs in a proper and efficient manner. In recent times there has been a significant influx of Asian migrants to Victoria. They are not educated in the ways of handling the fisheries of the State. Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, this is the third reading of a Bill. It is a very narrow debate that should be closely confined to specific provisions of the Bill after it has been through the Committee stage. The honourable member is giving the House his views about the knowledge of Vietnamese migrants, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The issue may have been addressed in the second-reading debate but certainly not in the third-reading debate. Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the amendment introduced by the Minister in the Committee stage increases the ~t of abalone licences. The honourable member for Ripon is arguing that the revenue generated as a result of the licensing process ought to be directed towards a greater surveillance level in the industry. As a result of the Minister's amendment in the Committee stage there is clearly a capacity for the honourable member to continue his remarks, and I ask you, Sir, to rule that way. Mr SIMMONDS (Reservoir) - On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, when I first came into this place I well recall Speaker Christie explaining to me that the tbird­ reading stage was a very narrow debate and that the introduction of new matters which had not been covered in the second-reading debate would be a breach of the conventions of this Chamber. Therefore, I ask you to uphold the point of order.

The ACI1NG SPEAKER (Mr Delzoppo) - Order! The third reading of a Bill is a narrow debate. As I have only just taken the Chair I cannot rule on the point of order, but I ask the honourable member for Ripon to confine his remarks to matters appropriate for debate during the third-reading stage. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) - I am referring to the terms of the Bill and point out that the amendment was introduced because the government did not have its legislation in order. Now for the first time, many weeks later, a whole range of matters that were not debated in the second-reading stage have been raised. It would be of great benefit to the industry if the Minister could take some notice of the existing problems which relate to the very matters that have been raised and debated for the first time today. The Bill is all about the licensing process and I am referring to fishing without licences. If we are to overcome the problem and keep this industry viable, the Minister should examine the position and take some action. For the past eight years I have raised these THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1460 ASSEMBLY ThW'Sday. 18 April 1991

matters in Parliament, but because the government has changed its Ministers every few months or so no-one has taken it upon himself or herself to do anything about it. Other Australian States have a much better system of penalties. In Victoria, to prove anyone guilty of an offence, one has to show that that person has taken the abalone for sale. In South Australia one has only to prove that a person has in his or her possession an amount considered to be close to a commercial amount - Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the honourable member for Ripon has been a member of this place for longer than most of us put together. He knows perfectly well that the third reading of this Bill does not encompass the penalties applying to illegal abalone fishing in South Australia. That issue is not within the confines of the third-reading debate on a Bill that has one main clause in it The third-reading debate should not be about the generality of the issues. The Committee dealt with the clauses and now the third-reading debate should be concerned only with the Bill as amended by the Committee. The honourable member should know better. Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) - On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the Bill is concerned with the increase in the charges payable on abalone licences and that is what the second-reading debate was all about I am suggesting there will be no industry and no charges payable unless the very matter I am raising now in a narrow way is dealt with by the Minister. I am giving him the opportunity to understand what he has to do to make possible the things he wants to put in place. The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! On the point of order, clause 1 of the Bill states:

The purpose of this Act is to increase the charges payable on the transfer of abalone licences. Therefore, I uphold the point of order. Mr AUSTIN - In view of your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker, I will now wind up. But I say to the Minister that if he does not do something serious over the next few weeks to put this industry in order, Victoria will be in the same state as New South Wales and California. The industry will have been completely and utterly destroyed. Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

THE CONSTITUTION ACf AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 21 March; motion of Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance). Mrs WADE (Kew) - The Bill could be described as a miscellaneous amendment Bill. Most of it relates to procedures or practices of the Electoral Commissioner and elections. THE CONSTITUfION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1461

The Bill contains some provisions which are also contained in another Bill listed on the Notice Paper, the Election Donations Disclosure and Public Funding Bill. I understand the government intends to withdraw that Bill before this one is read a second time. I hope the Minister will confirm that when he responds to the debate. A number of provisions in the Bill are designed to bring Victorian election practices into line with Commonwealth election practices. The same rolls are used for Commonwealth and State elections and it would be useful if the same procedures could apply to both elections. The opposition parties have no objection to a number of provisions in the Bill involving procedural matters and I shall refer to some of them. Gause 3 of the Bill amends section 113 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act and relates to rolls for dismcts and subdivisions. At present rolls are printed whenever the Minister directs that they should be printed and by these amendments it is proposed that the rolls will be printed whenever the Electoral Commissioner directs. That will apply to both new and supplemental rolls. Gause 3(2) of the Bill provides: Forthwith after the printing of the rolls for the conduct of an election, the Electoral Commissioner must sign the rolls and provide to each State returning officer the rolls for his or her electorate in a form to be determined by the Electoral Commissioner. At present rolls are signed by the registrar of each sulxlivision and are then sent on to the State returning officer. Previously the registrars kept the rolls for subdivisions and were able to sign them on the basis that they would be in a position to know that the rolls were correct. They would certify them and return them to the State returning officer. The rolls are now kept jointly with the Commonwealth on computer. It no longer makes sense for the registrars to certify the rolls. In fact, the only person who can now certify the rolls is the Electoral Commissioner, because he is the only person who knows whether the rolls have been properly kept on the computer. At least we hope the Electoral Commissioner knows that the rolls have been properly kept on the computer. This was an issue in relation to council elections in August 1989. On that occasion it became apparent the day before the elections were due to be held that about 18 000 people had been dropped off the electoral rolls for the municipal elections to be held throughout Victoria. I have with me a collection of newspaper articles which I obtained a few days ago as a result of a debate in the Queensland Parliament, which is also taking steps to pick up the Commonwealth rolls for State elections. A member of the that Parliament contacted me to find out whether there had been any problems in Victoria. I drew his attention to the problems that had occurred with the municipal elections in 1989. The Sun of 5 August 1989 carried an article with the headline "Bungle to cost many votes". The article began: THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1462 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Angry candidates yesterday blasted a computer bungle that will deprive thousands of Victorians of a vote in today's council polls and threatens a legal nightmare. About 18000 people will turn up to vote in the Statewide municipal elections to find their names missing from electoral rolls. As a result of that incident the Minister for Local Government approached the Victorian Solicitor General, Mr Hartog Berkeley, QC, for legal advice on whether the polls should be called off. Mr Berkeley advised that the elections should go ahead. An article which appeared in the Age of 5 August 1989, under the headline 'Thousands lose vote in rolls bungle", reported on the incident as follows: In Canberra, the Commonwealth electoral commissioner, Or Colin Hughes, said he was "extremely embarrassed" and had ordered a full inquiry. Although there were threats of a challenge to the results of those municipal elections I do not believe anything came of it. However, the articles demonstrate what problems can occur if the rolls are not kept properly. I trust that the Electoral Commissioner in Victoria has received a report of that inquiry and that we can be assured the rolls are now kept properly so that a similar situation does not occur. I understand that, in that case, the Commonwealth forgot to send one issue of the update of the rolls to the Victorian Electoral Commissioner. I should be interested to have the Minister's comments on that issue. Oause 4 of the Bill substitutes for existing section 114A of The Constitution Act Amendment Act a new section 114A. In large part the proposed new section repeats, with a few changes, what is in the present provision. The first change is found in proposed section 114A(2), which states: When providing rolls under sub-sections (1) and (6) or additions and deletions under sub-section (5) the Electoral Commissioner may provide the rolls or additions and deletions in a printed form or, if so requested, in an electronic form or both a printed form and an electronic form. As you will be aware, Mr Acting Speaker, rolls are kept in a form that enables them to be electronically scanned, so that after polling day people who do not vote, or who might exercise more than one vote, can be picked up. From time to time the technology changes, but I think we can be assured that in the foreseeable future we will always have a printed roll and an electronic roll. At present members of Parliament get copies of the rolls in printed form, and no doubt it would be convenient for some of them to receive in addition to the printed rolls, or instead of them, rolls in an electronic form. Proposed section 114A(S)provides: The Electoral Commissioner must, so far as it is practicable to do so, cause to be provided to those members of the Council and the Assembly who so request, at least 6 times each year, additions and deletions to the roll for each member's respective electorate, but the Electoral Commissioner must not include in any additions the names and addresses of persons whose addresses are not shown on the roll by virtue of section 121A. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDLRES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1463

This is legislative underpinning for what is the current practice. We do receive additions to and deletions from the roll for our electorates on a regular basis, but there currently no provision for that in the Act. I believe it safeguards members to have it inserted in the Act. That provision has the support of the coalition parties. I point out that the proposed subsection says "so far as it is practicable to do so". There may be a breakdown in the system, but,in my view, those words would not cover a situation where the Electoral Commissioner,for one reason or another - possibly a shortage of funds - did not want to provide the rolls. The provision would only cover a situation of computer breakdown or similar catastrophe. Proposed section 114A(6) states: The Electoral Commissioner must cause to be provided, to each registered political party, without charge, as soon as practicable after a redivision under the Electorar Boundaries Commission Act 1982, a set of up-to-

1464 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Gause 5(5) contains a provision regarding the deregistration of a political party that is not endorsing any candidates for election. The Constitution Act Amendment Act contains provisions for the deregistration of a political party that ceases to be a Parliamentary party and has fewer than 500 members. The amendment does not cover the situation where a political party stands candidates once after it forms and remains a registered political party even though it never stands another candidate. So at present any organisation that wanted the status of a political party could submit a list of 500 members, stand a candidate once and then retain its status as a political party forever. Gause 5(5) provides that a political party will lose its status if it is not a Parliamentary party and does not stand a candidate within a period of five years. Gause 7 relates to polling booths. The first provision changes the number of booths that have to be provided. At present every polling place has to have sufficient booths for one in every 600 electors who are entitled to vote at the polling place. Now that people are entitled to vote at any polling booth in their electorate, theoretically every polling place would have to provide sufficient booths for every 600 electors in that electorate, and that is plainly unnecessary and expensive and, in fact, is not done. The provision recognises the existing situation by stating that there will be as many booths at each polling place as the occasion may require. Gause 7(2) permits a polling place to be established in licensed premises in exceptional circumstances. At the moment it is forbidden to have a polling place in licensed premises. I understand from the people advising the Minister that if an election were held in mid-winter, it would be very difficult to find polling places at Mount Buffalo, Falls Creek or other skiing resorts. It may be that the only places available would be licensed premises. The coalition understands the force of that argument but believes it is inappropriate that people may have to vote in a bar or may have to walk through a bar to get to the polling place so it proposes to move an amendment to ensure the part used as a polling place is not a part where liquor is available or where voters have to walk through areas where liquor is sold or is available to get to the polling place. Gause 9 makes provision for postal voting centres. Again, this is to bring Victoria into line with Commonwealth legislation where, I understand, postal voting centres have been established at airports and other places. This is designed to meet the needs of the people who are travelling on an election day and who have forgotten to vote and want to cast a vote at the last minute as they fly out of Melbourne airport or get on a train at Spencer Street station. The opposition has no objection to that clause. Gause 11 relates to the wording of the authority for a political advertisement. Again this provision brings the legislation into line with Commonwealth legislation. Of course, the provision may be superfluous if the Federal Labor government can get through the Federal Parliament its proposal that there should be no political advertising, but it appears it is unlikely that proposal will proceed, SO in those circumstances it is just as well to bring the provision in line with Commonwealth legislation. Gause 12 relates to statute law revisions and appears to pick up some typographical and other errors in the Constitution Act Amendment Act. THE CONSTITlITION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1465

I will now turn to the provisions with which the coalition has difficulty. I have already referred to clause 7 (2), relating to winter polling places. Clause 6 proposes that ordinary ballot papers which are currently prescribed in the Ninth or Tenth schedules of the Constitution Act Amendment Act should in future be prescribed in regulation. Postal voting papers and absentee papers are already prescribed in regulation, but the coalition believes that ordinary voting papers are so important that it would be better to have them retained in the schedules of the Act. I understand the government does not propose to change the form of ordinary ballot papers, and if they are to remain in the Act as the coalition considers most appropriate, the Minister must introduce proposed new schedules to the Act. Although I have seen a copy of the proposed schedule, I have not yet had time to properly consider them and wish to reserve my position on it. Oause 8 has a new provision regarding ballot boxes. Honourable members will recall that in recent elections we had cardboard ballot boxes, so the provision currently in the Constitution Act Amendment Act that ballot boxes should be locked and the key kept in a safe place is no longer appropriate. The government proposes to omit the word '1ock" and substitute "securely fastened" and to omit the words about keeping the key in a safe place. The coalition believes it would be more reassuring to voters if the word '1ock" was replaced by "securely fastened and sealed" and I gather that that is in accordance with the present practice where numbered seals are used and cannot be replaced. Mr Micallef interjected. Mrs WADE - As the honourable member for Springvale says by interjection, the coalition does not trust the dirty tricks department of the Labor Party and believes that every caution should be taken. Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I take offence at those remarks and claim to be misquoted. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those remarks.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Delzoppo) - Order! The honourable member for Springvale has taken offence at the use of those words and I ask the honourable member for Kew to withdraw her remarks. Mrs WADE (Kew) - I thought the honourable member for Springvale said that I did not trust his party and I was merely picking up on his interjection, but if the honourable member takes offence at those words then I do withdraw. I turn further to the dirty tricks department, which is my description. Mr Micallef interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Springvale is out of order. Mrs WADE - I turn to the dirty tricks department of the Labor Party and the amendments to section 243 of the Act which are proposed in clause 10. Under section 243 it is an offence for a candidate to hire a conveyance to take an elector to vote or to give THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1466 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

donations or prizes to a club or association during an election or after an election has been called. The government is suggesting that those offences - which at the moment are sbict offences for which any member who does either of those things can be charged - should apply only if it can be proved the member acted corruptly. On its face this is worthy of consideration. One would not wish a member who had made a small gift to an association, perhaps not appreciating the terms of the Act, to be guilty of an offence. However, when considering the record of government members in recent elections, the opposition feels unable to go along with these amendments. Government members have failed to comply with the election provisions of the Act in a series of situations. The most relevant one occurred during the last election where two government members - the honourable member for Essendon and the honourable member for Niddrie - appeared to have breached section 243(2) of the Act in that they gave gifts to a football club. The honourable member for Essendon gave six William Strutt prints and the honourable member for Niddrie gave two bottles of port. Mr Micallef interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! Mr Micallef - What's his problem? The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The Chair's problem is that the honourable member for Springvale continually interjects. I ask him to stop. Mrs WADE - This is the sort of circumstance in which honourable members would have some sympathy. The donations were not enormous amounts of money. They do not appear to be in the nature of donations which are directed towards attracting votes. H it was necessary to amend the Act to cover this sort of situation, serious consideration should be given to it. I have a statement which the Electoral Commissioner provided to the Liberal Party following a complaint about these donations. The commissioner's statement, which is dated 1 October 1988 and describes the particular donations I have referred to, says that he had requested the Victoria Police to investigate these matters and that he had sought legal advice. He said that following consideration of the police report and the legal advice he received - he does not say where he got it from but it was probably the Solicitor-General, who is an expert in giving advice on elections, because he says he got opinion from counsel- it is his view that the conduct of Mr Rowe and Mr Sercombe does not warrant commencing procedures under section 243(2) of the Constitution Act Amendment Act and "l therefore propose to take no further action". When I asked the Electoral Commissioner to explain this he said he felt these particular offences were de minimus or so small and involving such small amounts that he did not feel it was appropriate to prosecute the two members concerned. In those circumstances one has to ask whether an amendment to the Act is necessary. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 Apri11991 ASSEMBLY 1467

If the situation is that all honourable members will be treated in a like fashion and that anyone who inadvertently breaches the section by giving a small gift clearly not intended to bribe anyone to vote for them is not going to ru~ into problems, there is even less need to amend the Act to cover that particular circumstance. We have to remember that there are other circumstances in which government members have been involved. I cannot remember in connection with the Greensborough by-election whether it was a sausage sizzle or a barbecue but it was suggested that the section had been breached, and the Electoral Commissioner took no action. Given that he is right in this, it appears there is no problem for what one might call small breaches of the section. One has to ask whether the Electoral Commissioner is correct in his approach and exactly how far one has to go for him to take action. There have been other breaches of the electoral laws not related directly to this section but, again, in recent times. There was the Nunawading how-to-vote affair where it appeared misleading how-to-vote cards were drawn up by members of the Australian Labor Party. I understand that they were actually drawn up by members of the ALP working in the office of the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora. In fact, one of the people involved in the Nunawading how-to-vote affair was rewarded by the ALP by obtaining preselection and becoming a member of this House. At the last election and also in previous elections -- Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the opposition spokesperson clearly cast aspersions on the character of the honourable member for Thomastown and I ask her to withdraw those remarks. Mrs WADE - On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I merely described a factual situation. I do not believe I cast any aspersions on the character of the honourable member for Thomastown other than describing the fact in which he was involved. The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The Chair has some difficulty with the point of order. The honourable member for Kew was raising a factual point and the honourable member with whom the point is concerned is not in the Chamber. I do not uphold the point of order. Mrs WADE (Kew) - The other situation arose following the last election, and I understand it has been the case in all elections in which the members I am about to refer to have stood as candidates. A considerable number of government members failed to comply with the Act in putting in their electoral expense returns as required by section 259. The members involved include many, if not most, of the Cabinet and the Minister then responsible for the administration of the Constitution Act Amendment Act. They include: the honourable members for Albert Park, Ballarat South, Brunswick, Bundoora, Carrum, Clayton, Coburg, Derrimut, Doveton, Essendon, Footscray, Knox, Mitcham, Monbulk, Morwell, Niddrie, Northcote, Oakleigh, Richmond, Ringwood and St Albans, and the now Minister for Planning and Housing and the Premier. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1468 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Although coalition members could see members might inadvertently be in breach of this section they felt, given all the examples of government members who have failed to submit electoral expense returns or have deliberately refused to comply with the Act over many years and over a number of elections - I recall the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, saying in the Chamber that he had never put in an election expenses return - they will not support clause 10. Apart from those issues, the Bill improves the provisions of the Act and to that extent it has the support of the coalition parties. Mr UEBERMAN (Benambra) - I support the excellent analysis by the honourable member for Kew, the shadow Attorney-General, who will be the next Attorney-General. I wish it was sooner rather than later. The government is changing our electoral procedures, but it does not have the confidence of the community. I have grave suspicions about the government when it introduces legislation amending fundamental matters designed to protect, preserve and enhance our democracy to ensure elections are held fairly with proper checks and balances. The government has been totally discredited because of its mismanagement, incompetence and the misbehaviour of its Ministers who have shown disrespect to Parliament and to the State. This week a Minister resigned. He was forced to because he had misled and lied to Parliament, the community and to his Premier. The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member for Benambra relate his remarks to the Bill. Mr UEBERMAN - I am happy to do that. The legislation relates to electoral procedures and perhaps is the most important statute of Parliament. What is the government's motivation and what will be the outcome of the Bill? It is proposed that a provision of the Act be replaced by the power to bring in regulations that will change the form of the ballot paper. Mr Gude - So Parliament cannot see it. Mr UEBERMAN - Yes, in that context I suggest we look at the government's performance in this regard. A Minister has lied to his Premier to the community and to Parliament. Finally he resigned. In question time earlier this week two other Ministers, the Minister for Agriculture -- The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! Once again I direct the attention of the honourable member for Benambra to the confines of the Bill. Will he point out the particular clause to which his remarks apply? He must speak on the Bill. Mr UEBERMAN - I point to clause 6 in which it is proposed to change the Act which sets out the provisions for the ballot paper for elections. It is proposed to prescribe the form of ballot papers by regulation. Regulations are not debated by Parliament and in many cases - not all-they cannot be changed by Parliament. I was also speaking about the sort of Cabinet Ministers who may bring in regulations by the stroke of a pen. Should Parliament give the government power to make a change by regulation to the mE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1469

form of the ballot paper in elections or should Parliament insist that these matters be changed only as a result of Parliamentary debate so that they are subject to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament? The standard and behaviour of the Cabinet is such that under no circumstances should we agree to the government having the right to bring in regulations to change the Constitution.

Even today senior Ministers, the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, as well as senior back benchers have actually refused to comply with the Act by providing details of their electoral expenses; they have failed to comply with that provision.

I was brought up to believe that the law should apply to all equally and for the Premier, the former Premier, Ministers and senior backbenchers to actually say they regard that section of the law as irrelevant and that they choose not to comply with it is wrong. They have actually chosen to flout the law saying, "It doesn't suit us; we are not going to comply with it" .

Parliament should regard what appears apparently to be an innocuous amendment to the electoral procedures with a great deal of suspicion and care. Checks and balances should be provided and I intend to pursue that. I support the qualifications of the Bill by the honourable member for Kew.

Many times during the past nine years I have said that Parliament must increase its scrutiny of legislation introduced by the government. Parliament must do what it can to limit the activities of the executive government bypassing Parliament, which offends the basic principles of our democracy and undermines our Parliamentary system.

Time and again the government has introduced legislation which sets out the laws, rights, duties and obligations of our citizens and statutory authorities, which can be changed by the stroke of a pen by regulation rather than amending existing law by introducing a Bill that can be debated by Parliament. This is why we should not give this discredited government the opportunity to change the Constitution dealing with electoral reforms by allowing it to bring in regulation-making powers. Even if there were an argument from a management point of view for that to happen, having regard to its track record, how could one allow the government to have that power? Mter a successful appeal for the government to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act, the former Premier went straight from the court, hopped into a government car and went off to change the rules by regulation, further frustrating the rights of citizens. How could one give the government any more power when it has already abused the power it has?

Similar statements can be made about the behaviour of candidates and whether they can be deemed to have committed acts of bribery. As the honourable member for Kew pointed out, clause 10 amends section 243 of the Constitution Act Amendment Act, which deems certain acts to be bribery. The Bill provides that candidates who give gifts or donations during election campaigns are not guilty of giving bribes unless it is proven THE CONS'ITI'UI'ION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1470 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

that they acted corruptly. The insertion of the word "corruptly" is the substantial amendment proposed by the government. The background to the change involves the actions of an ex-Minister, indeed the Minister who had to resign after admitting he lied to and misled the Premier and the community. He was involved in an action during the last State election campaign where he allegedly made a donation. I am not here to judge him in respect of that, and although the amendment may appear to be innocuous, in the light of the behaviour of that former Minister, I am not enthusiastic about supporting the change. Honourable members are being asked to amend the Constitution to allow for the behaviour of a former Minister. I do not necessarily reject the change out of hand, but, after the next election - I hope it will be soon - the new coalition government will establish an independent public inquiry into the electoral procedures of the State with a view to recommending amendments to the Constitution. I do not want to embrace amendments brought in by this government. Mr A. J. Sheehan - Where do these recommendations come from? Mr UEBERMAN - The proposals were made by the Electoral Commissioner and I know the Minister for Fmance has inherited those recommendations. However, I make this point - I hope the new Minister will take up the suggestion, if the Cabinet lets him - if there is to be an amendment to the Constitution, would it not be better if it were done after an inquiry by an organisation not associated with the government? Mr E. K. Smith - The Law Reform Commission could do it. Mr UEBERMAN - That is right, or a Royal Commission could be set up. I have just attended a meeting where I spoke with people about their concerns for our society. They were worried about what is happening, and who would not be after reading today about the State's massive debt? Parliament, the Constitution and electoral procedures must win back the confidence of the people. In the context of what I have said, I am reluctant to agree to the amendments. A full, public, open inquiry is needed before the Constitution is altered. At the risk of sounding political, I do not want to agree to the Bill because it is introduced by this government, and I have already refe! red to the characteristics of the government that are so offensive to many Victorians. The government cannot be trusted and it should not be given more power. Honourable members know what is happening with the Royal Commission in Western Australia and the links between the Federal ALP -- The DEPUIY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) - Order! I ask the honourable member for Benambra to speak to the Bill; he is beginning to stray from it. Mr UEBEKMAN - I am concerned about those unresolved public issues and the question of electoral funding, which is related to electoral procedures and the Constitution. Electoral funding should be fully disclosed. I am not sure whether it THE CONSfITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1471 should be done by tabling the information or whether it should be disclosed to an independent commissioner with power to make disclosure if it is shown to be in the public interest. Perhaps that is the way the law should be g~ing, but the community is crying out for politicians to support the need for disclosure. John Hewson courageously said he supports disclosure of donations, as does the Federal liberal Party, as long as the people making the donations are protected. John Hewson deserves credit for his courage in saying that and he has obviously gained support from all quarters of the community. The outcome of the Royal Commission in Western Australia will endorse Or Hewson's call for policies in this area. I should like the Minister to comment on the various clauses highlighted by the honourable member for Kew. She will put forward amendments at the appropriate stage, and I look forward to the discussions on those amendments. I reiterate my absolute concern about the way the government is perceived both in and outside Parliament. Victoria urgently requires an election; that will be a turning point and it is the most positive thing that could happen in this State. Parliament should not be asked to deal with amendments to the Constitution, which appear to be innocuous, in the twilight of this government's life and when members of the government have shown that they cannot be trusted. Mr J. F. McGRATH 0Narrnambool) - I should like to contribute briefly to the Bill, which deals with electoral procedures, and I pre-empt my remarks by saying it is always a matter of great importance to Parliament and the people of Victoria when we seek to make changes to our Constitution. All members of this House and all residents of Victoria ought to view these changes with caution, and we should give careful consideration to which changes are made because our Constitution has stood the test of time, and while I do not argue that it should not be continually reviewed, we as legislators of the State should pay a great deal of credence to the importance of what might be described as a small but significant Bill. Electoral procedures play a significant role in the election of the members of this place, and it is under those terms and conditions that I support the comments made previously by the honourable member for Benambra when he talked about regulations and the need for Parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to our Parliamentary system. We have seen a change of emphasis away from the importance of Parliamentary debate on issues that deal with our future. That abuse has resulted through overuse of regulation, and now is an appropriate time to comment on that. We should not forget that Parliament is here to scrutinise changes initiated by the elected government and that these changes should be subjected to debate and analysis by all within Parliament. The Bill's twelve clauses seek to do several things. One is to provide members of Parliament, in particular, with ongoing information about the members of our constituencies. If we are to be accountable and effective members of Parliament, each THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1472 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

and every one of us welcomes that ongoing support. This sort of service currently exists through the Australian Electoral Commission, and as a representative of the rural community I appreciate that sort of service. This will add to that service. Oause 7 deals with section 166(1) of the Constitution Act Amendment Act and removes the provision for a mandatory number of 600 electors to be available for anyone polling booth, and again I commend the government for taking up the recommendation to remove that section of the Act because if one were to apply that condition strictly in the electorate I represent one would eliminate many polling booths and, although there may be efficiency gains in doing so, it creates enormous geographical problems for some of the people. At present these people benefit from the flexibility used in not strictly applying that section of the Act. So on behalf of a rural electorate I am pleased to see the deletion of the provision because it will continue to assist the people I represent and other people throughout country Victoria. Oause 7 also seeks to amend section 166(4) of the Act and I welcome this amendment because it deals with licensed premises being used as polling booths and makes provision for that to occur under exceptional circumstances. I have 54 polling booths in the electorate I represent and only one of them falls within that category, and that is in the little township of Peterborough. It is a beautiful little spot right on the coast which is used both as a retirement centre and as a holiday area but because of the Act the licensed premises which are at the golf club and are used for Commonwealth Parliament elections are not allowed to be used for State elections. In the past our returning officer, Mr Longmore and his predecessor had to make all sorts of odd and weird arrangements to provide a voting facility for the people in the area, and I recall during the last election that they had to erect a marquee to meet the requirement of a polling booth. Problems arose because, as anyone who knows Peterborough will understand, it is right on the coast and the wind comes up off the sea late in the day, and we had some difficulty in keeping the marquee on the ground. It was a totally inadequate arrangement, so I am sure I speak on behalf of all of the people who would normally vote at Peterborough when I welcome this amendment to the Act. They will be able to return to some sort of humane procedure by using the secure and appropriate clubrooms at the golf club. The Bill also deals with the old necessity for ballot-boxes to have locks and keys. I find this provision intriguing because today we Ilave introduced the cardboard ballot-box; and anyone who has ever looked for any sort of security in ballot-boxes would have to agree with me that the cardboard ballot-box is an absolute disgrace to confidentiality and security within the Australian electoral system.

This decision, obviously undertaken by some isolated bureaucrat who perhaps had a vested interest in the original order which saw tens of thousands of these boxes ordered for dispersal around the country, is disgraceful and to talk about removing the necessity THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1473

for locks and keys for a cardboard box is a joke, particularly in these times when we should be getting rid of these types of boxes altogether. The types of ballot-boxes used should be reviewed. There has to be a better method of securing ballot papers than the present system of cardboard boxes - and a bit of sticky tape, as the honourable member for Berwick mentions by interjection.

Some other matters are dealt with in the Bill which I will not deal with, but there is one issue not in the Bill that I will deal with, with your permission Mr Deputy Speaker. That issue is how-ta-vote cards. This is very much a personal view, but I wonder how much longer it will be before we really address the tremendous consequences of how-ta-vote cards, their financial impact and their drain on natural resources, not to mention the sorts of problems that arise as a result of how-ta-vote cards.

An enormous cost is involved in producing the paper and in the printing and distribution of the cards. I know not all political parties agree with me on this one, but it is a tremendous waste of a resource and if one looks around polling booths after an election, one will see that, by and large, the cards are just thrown away. This is a tremendous waste. If there happens to be a few left over then perhaps they are used for scribble pads, but I still question the efficiency of the cards and I still fail to see why an enlarged how-ta-vote card within each polling booth could not be an efficient method of demonstrating to people the direction that a political party would like people to take, if they choose to follow that party's view in voting.

I thank you for your tolerance in allowing me to make those remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not part of the Bill but it is a matter that has been on my mind for some time and I just raise it for the attention of the House and the Minster.

Honourable members have in the past 24 hours debated a Bill about native vegetation and the retention of resources. If we are really serious about that perhaps we ought to talk about the sort of paper that we use in those sorts of exercises, where it comes from and what effect it has.

With those remarks I welcome certain parts of this Bill, in particular, the amendment in clause 7 concerning licensed premises. That will be welcomed by the constituents in Peterborough should the election be held this winter when it is raining and a south-east wind is blowing. It will be nice for them to be able to vote in the Peterborough Golf Oub within the confines of the Act.

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) - I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Kew and other coalition speakers, in particular, on clause 10 of the Bill, which will insert the word "corruptly" in section 243 of the Act. As the honourable member for Benambra said this amendment is significant because it condones the actions of people who at the last election did offer, perhaps as inducements, the types of inducements that are precluded by section 243 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act.

77825/91-48 THE CONSfITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1474 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Including the word "corruptly" gives great licence because it means that the people who would be offering these sorts of inducements could then say that they were not doing it for any corrupt reason. Allowing the word "corruptly" to go into the Act gives them far wider scope. The opposition is opposing it on that ground. I find it ludicrous that the community has not been informed. about this and has not been crying out. The amendment will give candidates scope they would not otherwise have. What action does the Attorney-General propose to take under the listening Devices Act 1987 with regard to the taping of a conversation reported in the Sunday Age concerning the former Minister for Small Business? He certainly has a duty -- The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I fail to see how these remarks relate to the Bill before the House. I should be interested to hear argument from the honourable member on this point.

Mr E. R. SMITH - Yes. As I was saying with regard to clause 10 of the Bill it is an indictable offence at the moment to allow: Every candidate or agent of a candidate who hires or afterwards pays for any conveyance hired for the purpose of bringing or carrying any elector other than himself in order that such elector may vote at any election or for the purpose of taking away any elector other than himself after he has so voted shall be deemed guilty of bribery within the meaning of this Part." It is already an indictable offence, one that can be prosecuted in the superior courts. It is not like the matter that involved. the honourable member for Thomastown, about which the honourable member for Kew spoke, that was merely a summary offence and after twelve months there was no offence. This amendment brings the issue into the realms of superior courts that have no such limitations. My point is that it will be interesting, with the Constitution being amended. in the way it is, to see whether the Attorney-General takes any action. I wonder what action he might take on the taping of the conversation - I make that point in passing. Because of all the changes the government has made from time to time to the Constitution Act Amendment Act there should be a full review of the Constitution. Let us get the Constitution right, then let us see whether it is worth having it changed by way of a referendum so that we have a situation like that of the Commonwealth Constitution, which cannot be altered except by way of a referendum. It seems to me we are still fiddling with the Constitution and still allowing Parliament the right to change it at its whim. We should get to the stage of having got the Constitution right and then being able to alter it only by way of a referendum. The confidence that would be regained in the community would be considerable.

The people of Victoria are desperately looking for that sort of action at this stage. This tampering with the Constitution through devices such as the amendment effected by clause 10 is not giving any confidence back to the people of Victoria; what the government is doing is showing yet again that it is merely attempting to window dress for its own benefit. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1475

Today honourable members have heard a number of very good speeches from honourable members who have considered this Bill, and if the amendments to be proposed by the oppositio1n are carried we might have a better Constitution. That is not to say that that should be the end of the matter. When in government we should be getting the Constitution completely right and then making sure that it cannot be changed except by way of a referendum.

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - The honourable member for Kew raised the issue of the Election Donations Disclosure and Public Funding Bill. This morning notice was given of the withdrawal of that Bill. I agree with her comments about the maintenance of the electoral roll and the need to keep it accurate. The particular difficulty she referred to related to the issue of property rights which affected municipal rolls.

The honourable member for Benambra raised issues about the governmenfs motive in proposing these amendments and appeared to misunderstand the source of the recommendations. It was the Electoral Commissioner, an independent officer who reports to the Parliament. The amendments in this Bill come from recommendations that are contained in the annual report of the State Electoral Office for 1989-90.

The honourable member spent some time discussing clauses 6 and 10, which have been specifically recommended by the Electoral Commissioner. In raising those issues the honourable member is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commissioner, and that is not like him; he usually does not indulge in those sorts of activities.

The honourable member for Warrnambool talked at some length about the Peterborough Golf Oub and seemed to suggest some difference within the coalition relating to clause 7 and the use of licensed premises as polling booths. He also raised the issue of the enormous amount of resources that are wasted by how-tO-vote cards and those sorts of things in an election. The government has pursued that matter with other parties without success but it will revisit the issue.

The honourable member for Glen Waverley raised the issue of corrupt intent in clause 10, which, once again, is a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner.

The reference by the honourable member for Glen WaverIey to referendums did not relate to any clause in the Bill.

As to the objections raised by the honourable member for Kew and the specific amendments she has suggested, the government is quite prepared to consider them while the Bill is between here and another place.

Motion agreed to. Read second time. Committed. mE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1476 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Committee Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 Mr CLARK (Balwyn) - To assist the Committee in its deliberations on this clause will the Minister provide the Committee with some information regarding his intentions as to when the various parts of the Act, as provided for in the Bill, will come into operation? In particular, will he explain to the Committee why he thinks it is necessary that parts of the Act should come into operation on various dates? Will he indicate to the Committee whether there are any particular provisions in the Bill that are not suitable to come into operation rather quickly after assent is given to the Bill? If there are any such prOvisions, can he give reasons why they are not able to come into operation quickly? I do not suspect any problem in this regard but it is desirable for the Committee to know when legislation is likely to commence and if there are any particular reasons why all parts cannot commence simultaneously. Parliament should be aware of such reasons. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - There is no particular reason. If there is a strong desire to nominate a particular date, that is fine. Clause agreed to; clause 3 agreed to.

Oause4 Mr CLARK (Balwyn) - Will the Minister inform the Committee how he expects new section 114A - to be inserted by this clause - will operate assuming it comes into operation in the relatively near future? I draw attention to the fact that proposed section 114A(1) provides that the Electoral Commissioner must cause to be provided, without charge, within two years of the polling day of the last simultaneous election various copies of rolls to various parties and persons. My query is whether, once the proposed section comes into operation, the time limits for the provision of this information by the Electoral Commissioner will be counted from the date of the last simultaneous election for Parliament; namely, 1 October 1988. If that is the case, the time limit will have expired at the time the section comes into operation. Does the Minister intend, on the one hand, that relatively quickly after the proposed section comes into operation the commissioner will provide the various rolls? It may be necessary to clarify that aspect. If, on the other hand, the Minister considers this provision will not operate in that manner because it will not have some retrospective operation, and if the Minister considers it will not apply until after the next simultaneous election, will he indicate that to the Committee? If so, will he also indicate why it is his intention that the provision shall not apply until after the next simultaneous election? Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - I am not sure I am responding to the point raised or that I entirely understand the point raised by the honourable member for THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1477

Balwyn. The intention is that the rolls will be issued within about six to eight weeks of the proclamation of the Act. Does that respond to the honourable member's concern? Mr CLARK (Balwyn) - In a practical sense it does and I am pleased the Minister has indicated that is the intention because I expect a number of honourable members will find it useful to be able to obtain rolls in electronic form, given the advances in technology these days; also there are probably other benefits frorrt the provisions. I suppose all that remains is a technical issue as to whether there should be some transitional provision to set out what happens within the six to eight weeks because, as I said previously, once the section comes into operation the time limit of two years will already have expired. The Electoral Commissioner is out of time the instant the proposed section comes into operation. Everyone can understand the reasons as a matter of drafting and to make proper formal provisions but could some special transitional arrangement be inserted to cover that situation? Clause agreed to; clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move: 1. Oause 6, omit this clause. The coalition opposes this clause. The government through this clause is proposing amendments to repeal Schedules 9 and 10 of the Act which prescribe the ordinary ballot papers for the Upper House and the Lower House elections. As was pointed out during the second-reading debate, it is not appropriate - particularly at this time - to leave such an important matter to the government to prescribe by way of regulations because even if those regulations could be disallowed, if the form set for it in those regulations were not appropriate, it may well be that Parliament would not be sitting at the appropriate time and that action could not be taken. To safeguard the position at least until the next election, no change should be made. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - As indicated during the second-reading debate, I am prepared to discuss the matter while the Bill is between here and the other place.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - Earlier the Minister indicated to me that he was prepared to consider all the amendments we are putting forward while the Bill is between here and another place. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary to divide on the proposed amendment. I trust the Minister's deliberations will result in his accepting each of the four amendments standing in my name because the provisions are not appropriate for inclusion in the amending legislation. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

1478 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to.

Clause 7 Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move: 2 Oause 7, page 6, line 19, after this line insert- "(6) During any period that any part of any premises is to be used for the purpose of a polling booth under sub-section (5), that part of the premises must not be - (a) used for the sale of liquor; or (b) accessible from any other part of the premises which is being used for the sale of liquor.".". As all speakers in the debate on the Bill have mentioned, the government proposes that in exceptional circumstances licensed premises may be used for the purpose of a polling booth. The opposition does not object to that but it should be made absolutely clear that that part of the premises being used as a polling booth will not be used also for the sale of liquor. No access to the polling booth should be available from that part of the premises where the sale of liquor is being undertaken. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - Again, with special reference to the Peterborough golf club, the matter will be discussed while the Bill is between here and another place. Amendment negatived; clause agreed to.

ClauseS Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move: 3. Oause 8, line 23, after "fasten" insert "and seal". The amendment seeks to ensure that the cardboard ballot-boxes are sealed as well as fastened. On this occasion, although it is understood that the Minister is prepared to consider this matter while the Bill is between here and another place, it would be interesting to have his views. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - In the interests of limiting the discussion while the Bill is between here and the other place, the government accepts the amendment. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move: 4. Oause 10, omit this clause. Oause 10 proposes to amend section 243 of the Act, by inserting the word "corruptly" in respect of hiring a conveyance to take an elector to vote and in relation to a gift or prize SENTENCING BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1479

to a club or an association. The reason why the amendment is being put forward has been fully explained.. I should like to try my luck a second time and ask if the Minister will comment on this amendment. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - The amendment is a commonsense approach, and again I indicate that I am prepared to discuss the matter while the Bill is between here and the other pbce. Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Reported to House with amendment

Passed remaining stages.

SENTENCING BILL Order of the Day read for resumption of debate. The SPEAKER - Order! Before calling the next speaker on the Bill I remind the House that I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. Second reading Debate resumed from 10 April; motion of Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General). Mrs WADE (Kew) - The Sentencing Bill has a long history. Honourable members will recall that in 1988 the Victorian Sentencing Committee, chaired by Sir John Starke, QC, produced a three-volume report. Following that report, based on consideration of the whole ambit of the sentencing procedure, the government established the sentencing task force to review all statutory maximum penalties in Victoria and to report to the Attorney-General. That report was presented in September 1989. Honourable members have been waiting for this Bill since the report in 1988. The Sentencing Committee had been sitting for several years before that and had gone through a difficult and painstaking process in putting forward its recommendations. The Bill finally before the House is a code on sentencing. As I said, it is the result of much thought and effort over a long period. In the relatively short time that the Bill has been available to the coalition parties, we also have given the issues much thought. We have gone to a great deal of effort to ensure that all the provisions have been considered in detail. Unfortunately it appears that in some respects the Attorney-General has disregarded the advice he has been given by the committee established to consider the issue. The Bill is not without merit. The Attorney-General has incorporated in it one of the policies of the opposition, that is, that offenders should serve their full minimum sentence. In 1986 the opposition forced the government to adopt this principle for SENfENCING BILL

1480 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

persons convicted of murder where a minimum sentence had been set, but it certainly is not the case for other offences. This is best expressed in one of the Australian Labor Party policies. I have here a copy of a document - it is not clear whether it is an ALP policy document or a government document; it is one of the big tick documents, one of the Victoria documents - called Victoria Building a Law-Abiding Society- Together. My understanding is it is put about as ALP policy. It explains the present sentencing position at page 21 and says: At present a prison sentence is expressed as, say, 5 years maximum with a 3 year minimum. Most people think naturally that this means 5 years in prison or, at least, not less than 3. It doesn't and never has! It actually means 3 years less remissions in prison followed by 2 years on parole. This document Victoria Building a l.ilw-Abiding Society - Together goes on to talk about changes to this procedure. It is perhaps fortunate that these changes are now out of date. In fact, they describe the proposals that were put forward in the government's penalties and sentences Bill which was subsequently withdrawn. The document also refers to a sentencing manual to be made available to guide judges when they reach the sentencing stage. I shall return to that later. The provision that was inserted by the opposition in the Penalties and Sentences Act to require that a person convicted of murder serve a full minimum sentence is not actually reflected in this Bill. The Bill provides for non-parole periods, but so far as I can see there is no provision in it to actually say that people will serve the full non-parole period. Maybe it is not necessary for that provision to be there; certainly the Corrections (Remissions) Bill has made changes to the corrections legislation to abolish remissions and early release schemes. I imagine the government is depending on those amendments, but it would be more satisfactory if a provision were inserted in the Sentencing Bill- which, after all, is a code on sentencing - or possibly in the corrections legislation to ensure that the principle that prisoners serve the full non-parole period is quite clear. The principle that prisoners serve the full non-parole period is also in place in New South Wales. The New South Wales government has called this principle "truth in sentencing", and the Victorian Attorney-General has picked up that description. It is interesting to note how very keen the government is these days to join with New South Wales in just about everything it does. The other morning the Attorney-General was saying that we would do exactly the same as New South Wales with casinos; and the Treasurer was saying he would do exactly the same as New South Wales with taxes. Apparently anything that New South Wales does must be absolutely right and we should be prepared to accept it without any criticism whatsoever. This is somewhat in contrast with the situation I seem to remember back in 1988 and early 1989 when we were told every morning at question time that everything New South Wales was doing was absolutely hopeless. SENTENCING BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1481

I shall pick up a couple of comments that the Attorney-General made in the second-reading speech on the Bill. He said:

The public has a right to know what period of imprisonment will be served by a person who receives a prison sentence in a Victorian court. It is no longer acceptable to the Victorian public that administrative interventions like remissions and early release should reduce the period fixed as the minimum term by the sentencing judge.

That is correct, but there are two aspects to the public attitude to sentencing: the first is the issue that the Attorney-General has raised, that the general public are outraged that offenders do not serve the minimum sentences fixed by the sentencing judge; and the second is the fact that they do not consider, in many instances, that the time actually served is long enough considering the nature of the crime and the effect of the crime on the victim or the victim's family.

The Attorney-General also said in the second-reading speech that this Bill is not about increasing sentences. In fact, there seems to have been a fair amount of belief on the part of the general public and the media that this Bill was about increasing sentences.

I refer, for instance, to an article in the Age written by Soott Symonds that talks about the opposition guaranteeing passage through the Legislative Council for a Bill which means longer prison terms. Of course, the real situation is that the Bill is about reducing prison sentences.

The government in New South Wales abolished remissions and did not reduce sentences. There are now more prisoners in gaol as a proportion of the population in New South Wales than there have been since 1971. The Attorney-General said that the abolition of remissions in New South Wales had led to an explosion in the prison population and severe problems in prisons. Of course, we do not want that to occur in Victoria. However, I have been given other explanations by officers of the Attorney-General's Department in New South Wales who say that they believe the increase in the prison population is not related so much to the abolition of remissions but is more related to the fact that the New South Wales government has 1600 more police than it had when the legislation came into operation; they also say that they have greater productivity in the courts. They believe those two initiatives have done more to put more people in gaol than the abolition of remissions has done to keep them there.

Nevertheless, the opposition can understand that the abolition of remissions without any other action is likely to lead to longer sentences and the Attorney-General has taken further action. Firstly, in this Bill he has reduced maximum sentences for a very large number of offences. I believe maximum sentences for some 60 per cent of Crimes Act offences have been reduced, and some of those have been reduced quite substantially.

Some sentences that have been reduced from 20 years to 15 years include: accessory to treason, kidnapping - which, of course, is an offence very much in our minds at present - aggravated burglary, and taking control of an aircraft by force or fraud. All those offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years at present and they have been reduced to SENTENCING BILL

1482 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

15 years. Some penalties that have been reduced from 20 years to 12.5 years include robbery, and intentionally destroying or damaging property intending to endanger life. Offences for which sentences have been reduced from 15 years to 10 years include: dishonestly destroying or damaging property, endangering safe operation of aircraft, and various offences connected with explosives. Therefore, there have been very substantial changes in maximum penalties under this Bill. I return now to the Attorney-General's comments in the second-reading speech. He said:

A major recommendation of the Starke package was the reduction of maxim urn sentences fixed by legislation for offences overall. The committee argued that by lowering the statutory maximum penalties, Parliament would indicate to the courts that the abolition of remissions should notlead to an across-the-board, unjustified increase in the actual time served in prison. So by reducing the length of sentences the Attorney-General is implementing the recommendations of the Starke report. The effect of Parliament's reducing those maximum sentences must be that the courts will reduce the sentences imposed for the offences I have referred to. In other words Parliament will be giving an indication to judges and magistrates that previous maximum sentences are no longer appropriate and that new levels have been set.

Oause 5(2)(a) says that in sentencing an offender the court must have regard to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, and the Attorney-General seems to have wrapped up this matter" very well. As a result of the reduction of maximum sentences and the requirement that judges have regard to current maximum sentences, one assumes that courts will hand down sentences less than current sentences. Although sentences will be shorter, this will not result in offenders spending significantly less time in prison because remissions that have the effect of reducing the minimum sentence by about one-third have been abolished. Therefore, the full sentence that is handed down will have to be served - although it is difficult to tell.

Because the changes in maximum sentence vary from offence to offence, the combined effect of those changes is likely to be that most sentences served will be approximately as long as the sentences served under existing legislation, except in those few cases where sentences have been increased or left at their current levels. One assumes that in those cases the Attomey-General's intention is that offenders will serve longer sentences because of the fact that Parliament has made clear that it regards such offences as being serious and deserving of penalties longer than those offences currently attract.

It must be said that the coalition parties are opposed to reductions in the length of sentences. We do not believe the community wants actual sentences to be reduced; but we are not opposed to the rationalising of maximum sentences and consistency in sentencing. The opposition parties do not object to a reordering of maximum sentences to bring them more into line with the community's view of the seriousness of particular SENTENCING BH...L

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1483

offences. Nevertheless we query whether, in ranking sentences in order of seriousness, the sentencing task force had proper regard to the views of the community. A paragraph from the report of the sentencing task force that causes me to express some concern about the way it carried out its inquiry states: From time to time, attempts have been made in this country and overseas to obtain community ratings of offence seriousness through surveys of public opinion. A not uncommon finding of public opinion polls is that people believe that courts do not deal harshly enough with criminals, that leniency by the courts is an important cause of increasing crime and that stiffer sentences would decrease recidivism. The limited time and resources available in the preparation of this report have not allowed for any polling of the views of members of the general public. It is an exercise which is both difficult and expensive to do well. Even then the findings may not help to resolve the complex issues of penalty and offence relativities we have had to address. There is no doubt, however, that anticipated public reaction to proposed changes is a factor to be given weight in framing revisions to the sentencing structure. The opposition parties agree with the last sentence because we certainly wish to give weight to the views of the community. It is unfortunate that the task force did not obtain the views of the community when framing its recommendations. Nevertheless the recommendations made by the task force appear to be the basis on which maximum sentences have been adjusted. On the whole the recommendations have been accepted by the government, although some minor changes have been made. In particular the government has decided not to go along with the recommendation to reduce the sentences for certain sexual offences, including aggravated rape, instead leaving the penalties at their current level. The combination of the acceptance by the government of the recommendations of the sentencing task force and the abolition of remissions would probably have resulted in the length of sentences served by offenders being similar to the length of sentences served at present. The opposition would have been prepared to accept all of that but for the fact that the government has incorporated in the Bill a hidden agenda. Despite various press reports about the Bill increasing sentences - and there have been other reports about sentences not being decreased - it appears the government wants to reduce sentences. In addition to reducing the majority of maximum sentences, in some cases from fifteen years down to five years, the power to grant remissions has been transferred from the corrections system to the courts. I refer to subclause 11(1), which says: In sentencing an offender to a tenn of imprisonment, a court must take into account the fact that remission entitlements have been abolished by the Corredions (Remissions) Act 1991 and must reduce the sentence accordingly. Perhaps I have not described it accurately, because it is not a matter of a power being transferred; rather a requirement to grant remissions will be transferred from the corrections system to the courts. Clause 11 (2) says:

The reduction required by sub-section (1) is such as is necessary to ensure that the sentence will not result in the offender spending any longer time in custody than he or she would have spent SENTENCING BILL

1484 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 18 April 1991

if remission entitlements had not been abolished and the offender had been entitled to maximum remission entitlements. There is a doubling-up effect, because maximum sentences have been lowered but remissions continued under another system. As a result it seems that the sentences handed down and served are likely to be approximatel} one-third less than the sentences currently served in the majority of cases. I again refer to the Attorney-General's second-reading speech, where he says:

... it is not intended that the abolition of remissions will in itself lengthen the period served. Rather, it means the period served reflects the sentence passed. That is absolutely correct; but, Mr Speaker, you will note that although the Attorney-General said that the abolition of remissions will not lengthen the period served, he forgot to mention that the combination of the abolition of remissions and the reduction in the maximum sentences for the majority of offences will result in shorter sentences being served.

As I said, the coalition parties do not believe this is acceptable to the community and they were forced to decide between two ways to propose amendments to the Bill; that is, decide between omitting the new rationalised sentences or omitting clause 11 which requires the courts to take into account the abolition of remissions.

We felt the rationalisation of sentences was a step in the right direction and that a lot of work had gone into that exercise by a large number of experts. We felt it was consistent with the recommendations of the Starke committee. On the other hand, the requirement that a court must reduce a sentence to take into account the abolition of remissions has considerable problems. It was not a Starke committee recommendation and it perpetuates the remission system but one of the greatest problems with it is that it would be difficult ever to repeal. Repeal without any other changes would mean that whenever one did it one would be increasing the sentences actually served by a third. So unless it were accompanied by further amendments to reduce sentences in some way by a third, if this clause 11 were to remain in the Bill we could be faced with courts taking into account the abolition of remissions which occurred in 1991 in five years time, in ten years time, in twenty years time, forever, until such time as somebody had the determination to totally review the sentencing code again. That is plainly nonsense.

If the government wants sentences to be further reduced, and it does appear that that is on the agenda today, it should say so. If it wants sentences reduced by a further third, there was nothing to stop it further reducing the maximum sentences even more. It may be that we would not have agreed to that but it would have been a more up-front and more honest way of keeping the community informed.

The other option for the government is that it could leave sentences at their present level and then a clause along the lines of clause 11 could remain in the Bill. That is unsatisfactory for the reasons I have just explained; that is, that that provision would SENTENCING BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1485

have to stay there forever and judges would be forever being referred back to the abolition of remissions by the Corrections (Remissions) Bill 1991. The Attorney-General's advisers have said this is not a doubling up effect, and that what will happen is that judges will not take into account any changes Parliament makes to maximum sentences. This seems to proceed on the basis that judges have their own ideas about sentences and they will continue to follow their views regardless of whatever Parliament does about sentences. I find it hard to believe the Attorney-General could really think judges of our courts take absolutely no notice of what Parliament says about sentences and I would be interested if the Minister could explain that in his response. Mr Kennan interjected. Mrs WADE - I am not interested in what he thinks the New South Wales judges did because in New South Wales there was no lessening of sentences; the New South Wales legislation is different to legislation in Victoria and we do not want to know about what happened in New South Wales. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General is saying he does not believe Victorian judges will take any notice of the reduction in maximum sentences if those reductions were to be passed by Parliament. I have faith that the Victorian judiciary will take notice of Acts of Parliament and if maximum sentences are reduced that will be reflected in the sentences actually imposed by the courts. I believe judges are conscious of the respective roles of Parliament and the courts and I do not believe they would not respond to these changes. It might also be interesting for honourable members to note that there is a third way in which it is suggested this Bill may result in lower sentences. I am not sure this has the backing of the Attorney-General and again I would be interested in his comments. I refer him to paragraphs 130 and 133 of the report of the Sentencing Task Force. Paragraph 130 states: In any sentencing scale, consideration must be given to the matter of the units in which penalties are to be expressed. Should maximum statutory terms of custody or other obligation be expressed in terms of years, months, weeks, days or hours? All are presently used. It is not unthinkable that there would be a significant reduction in the length of sentences if, as a matter of legislative policy, all sentences of imprisonment were expressed in months or weeks rather than in years. Should fines be described in terms of specific dollar amounts or penalty units? Paragraph 133 gives the conclusion of the task force on that point: It has been pointed out that altering the conventional units of time in sentencing may change sentencing practice ... In a mock sentencing exercise, when sentences were expressed in units of weeks, they were spectacularly shorter than those passed in units of years in respect of the same case. We therefore recommend that the lengths of sentences of imprisonment be expressed in terms of months. The government has accepted that recommendation, presumably for the reasons set out in the explanation. I am not sure how effective that will be but it certainly means that in the view of the task force - and presumably of the government - sentences are to be SENTENCING BILL

1486 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

expressed in months and are so expressed in this Bill, so instead of 15 years it is 180 months, instead of 10 years, 120 months, and instead of 5 years, 60 months. I found that extremely difficult to follow at first and I still have not come to grips with it. I have no doubt if I were a judge I would be making some changes in the sentences imposed. We do not intend to support legislation which clearly reduces the length of sentences actually served by three different and compounding methods. Remissions may be abolished under the Corrections (Remissions) Bill but the Attorney-General is attempting to reincarnate it in this Bill and we are not prepared to agree to that. Leaving aside the length of sentences, the Starke committee recommended a number of measures to promote consistency in sentencing. Two of those recommendations has already been before Parliament in the form of a Bill which was intended to establish both the judicial studies board and the bureau of crime statistics. Parliament has dealt with the first part of that and legislation is now in place to establish the judicial studies board. I am not aware whether that legislation has been proclaimed and what progress has been made with the establishment of the judicial studies board but I have no doubt the Attorney-General will inform us of that when responding to this debate. The proposal for the bureau of crime statistics has been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Committee. Another proposal that was put forward by the Starke committee was a proposal for guidelines judgments. I understand the Starke committee got the idea of guideline judgments from the English procedure and I understand guideline judgments have proved to be useful in England but that the reason they are necessary in England does not exist here in Victoria; that is, in England there is a large use of temporary and part-time judges and, of course, that is not the case here. The provisions in the Bill relating to guideline judgments which are found in clause 7 go beyond the recommendations of the Starke committee. The Bill has three major differences from the recommendations of the Starke committee. Clause 7(2) states:

A guideline judgment is binding on every oourt in imposing a sentence in any subsequent proceeding unless the oourt is of the opinion that the particular circumstances of the proceeding are so materially different as to require it to depart from the guidelines. That is not consistent with the Starke committee recommendation. The Starke committee thought that guideline judgments should not be binding but should be in the nature of obiter dicta. Cause 7(7) states: The Full Court may give a guideline judgment in a proceeding even if it is not necessary for the purpose of determining that proceeding. Again that is a provision which gives binding force to obiter dicta. It is in fact an invitation to the Full Court to legislate. It is an invitation to go beyond the facts of a particular case and to foresee the future and to hand down binding guidelines which are a form of legislation. The third problem I have with the provision is clause 7(5) which states: SENTENCING Oll..L

Thmsday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1487

The Full Court may only give a ~deline judgment if the Chief Justice (whether or not he or she is sitting as a member of the Full Court) approves its giving a guideline judgment. So if the Chief Justice thinks fit, some judgments will be guideline judgments and others will not be. This raises the whole question of what is the status of Full Court decisions which are not declared to be guideline judgments. In those cases what is the position where a Full Court in a subsequent proceeding varies or revokes the guideline judgment, which it can do under clause 7(8)? Is that sufficient to take away the binding nature of the earlier guideline judgment which has been overruled? The opposition believes the guideline judgment provisions are totally unsatisfactory and cannot support them. It would be far better for the establishment of the Judicial Studies Board to proceed because that board has the power to provide seminars and offer advice on certain issues. It would be better to give that a run first. It may be that guideline judgments are totally unnecessary once the Judicial Studies Board is up and running and can offer advice about sentencing and information on aspects of the sentencing code and crime statistics. The opposition believes the guideline judgment provisions should be deferred and not included in the Bill. Then the Judicial Studies Board can be in operation for a couple of years before we can again examine whether they are necessary. Gause 5 sets out the purposes of sentences. This is a code and these guidelines are the only purposes for which sentences may be imposed. Clause 5(1) states:

The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are- (a) to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; or (b) to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; or (c) to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated; or (d) to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged; or (e) a combination of two or more of those purposes. Paragraph (e) does not appear to be necessary. It is clear from subclause (1) and certainly from provisions in subclauses (3) to (7) which refer to the purpose or purposes of a sentence, that a judge can pick up one or more of those purposes. The opposition proposes that an additional purpose should be inserted, that is, the protection of the community from the offender. The opposition clearly believes that is an appropriate purpose of a sentence. I do not say it is the only purpose but it is one purpose that should be taken into account by the court. I refer the House to a recent Full Court decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, R v. Young and Others,· which is reported at page 951 of the 1990 Victorian Reports. Page 957 states: SENTENCING BILL

1488 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform. The purposes overlap and none of them can be considered in isolation from the others when determining what is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. The Full Court went on to quote the judgment of the majority of the High Court in the case of Veen (No.2). The High Court said: The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In the latter case, retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted. The High Court then decided on what weight would be given to those considerations. But certainly it is quite clear that, in proposing the additional purpose to be inserted in clause 5, the opposition is merely reflecting the current position. If the provision is not included in clause 5, the court will not be able to consider the protection of society at all. The coalition will move an amendment in the Committee stage to ensure that the courts can take the protection of society into account. While talking about the protection of society, I should like to foreshadow another amendment. The opposition will be proposing that one of the maximum sentences should be increased. Overall the opposition was satisfied with the rationalisation of offences as suggested by the Starke committee and the sentencing Task Force." But like the Attorney-General, who has decided that he does not want to rationalise down the maximum penalties for serious sex offences, the opposition does not want to rationalise down the penalties for armed robbery to the extent that the task force has recommended and which the Attorney-General has accepted. I refer to the most serious offences which have the highest statutory maximum imposed at present. The offences include armed robbery, which carries a penalty of 25 years maximum, and a series of offences which carry a penalty of 20 years maximum: aggravated rape; sexual penetration of a child under 10 years; aggravated burglary; robbery; incest; and arson. The Attorney-General has decided to keep the maximum for sexual offences at 20 years. We believe the reduction from 25 years to 15 years for armed robbery is inappropriate. Armed robbery is a most serious offence and the effect on victims can be devastating. Although I do not think it is possible to equate one offence with another, I am sure the Attorney-General was considering the effect on victims when he decided to retain twenty years as the penalty for aggravated rape and other sexual offences, and I point out that the circumstances of armed robberies can be quite horrific. The opposition thinks it is inappropriate to reduce the penalty to fifteen years; we think that would be giving the wrong message to both judges and the community. We think this offence should come within the twenty-year group of offences. Clause 109 of the Bill has the heading "Penalty scale" and includes a table of penalties, comprising four columns. The first column lists levels of imprisonment ranging from 1 to SENTENCING BILL

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1489

13. The second oolumn lists maximum terms of imprisonment that can be imposed for each level of imprisonment and they range from life down to six months. The third column lists maximum fines in penalty units. The fines range from a maximum of $180 000 down to $100. The fourth column lists maximum hours of unpaid community work. The highest entry is 500 hours over a 24-month period, and there is no entry in that column against life imprisonment. The way the table works is set out in section 109(1), which says: An offence that is described in an Act, subordinate instrument or local law as being of a level specified in column 1 of the Table is, unless the contrary intention appears, punishable in any of the ways specified opposite it in any other column of the Table. The opposition does not believe fines or community-based orders are appropriate penalties for people convicted of offences carrying terms of imprisonment of 15 years; 12 years and 6 months; 10 years; 7 years and 6 months; and 5 years. The opposition does not believe that community-based orders are appropriate for kidnappers, rapists, robbers or people convicted of aggravated burglary or intentionally causing serious injury. We do not believe those sorts of people should be working in the community on community work projects. We do not believe people convicted of those offences should be able to pay a fine instead of going to prison. Certainly a fine may be additional to imprisonment, but we do not believe it should be seen as an alternative to imprisonment. I foreshadow amendments to the table. We will propose amendments to remove fines and community-based orders as alternatives to imprisonment levels 1 to 6. At the other end of the scale we will propose that community-based orders and fines should be available as alternatives to imprisonment for offences attracting maximum terms of less than six months. I do not intend at this stage to go into the detail of the Bill. As is his traditional practice, the Attorney-General will bring forward a large number of amendments. We will also bring forward amendments. Our amendments are directed to what we see as the most serious defects in the Bill. The Bill has a large number of defects but we do not believe it is part of our function to rewrite the Attorney-General's legislation. I say that because the other day the Attorney-General seemed to be inviting me to rewrite his legislation. I give him notice that I have no intention of doing it. Mr E. R. Smith - You do it better than he does anyway. Mrs WADE - Yes, but I do not intend to do it; I am saving my skills for when we can put in our own legislation.! will raise these and other issues at the Committee stage. I will also be moving other amendments, to which I will briefly refer. The oppasition is concerned with the power being given to the courts to impose fines above the maximum fine set out in the legislation. In certain circumstances where people make a large profit out of crime there may be a temptation to impose a fine greater than the maximum, but we do not believe that power ADJOURNMENT

1490 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

should be conferred on the courts. Confiscation of profits legislation would be a better way to go and I understand the Attorney-General has that in mind. If he does not have it mind, I have it in mind, and it would have a high priority with a coalition government. We are also concerned about clause 53, which makes fines payable by instalments at the request of the offender rather than at the discretion of the court. If an offender makes a request the court has no alternative but to allow fines to be paid in instalments. I understand that is the situation that exists presently, but it seems undesirable. For instance, a person such as Mr Herscu may come before a court and ask for time to pay in instalments. I suppose he could be given instalments of $1 million one day and $1 million the next if there were no maximum limits. In fact, I believe he asked to be able to payoff his instalments on a basis of $1 a week. I would not like to think a court could consent to such a proposal. Gauses 68 and 116 provide for rules and regulations and the opposition will move to insert the usual disallowance provision. I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to clause 66. The opposition has provided him with an amendment to remove the provisions of that clause, which relate to the imprisonment of a director where a body corporate has not paid a fine. In principle we do not disagree with the proposal, but the section appears to be defective. It is not quite the same as a director incurring debts when he knows there is no money to pay. A situation could arise where an employee of a body corporate went out and ran up thousands of dollars worth of parking fines without the knowledge of the directors of the body corporate. As the provision in the Bill stands, a director has no opportunity of explaining that he or she knew nothing about those offences being committed or fines being imposed. I suggest the Attorney-General could take that provision back to the drawing board and the opposition is prepared to consider it if it is put up in another form. This Bill should not go ahead without major alterations. The opposition undertakes to make major alterations to the Bill which it believes are important in the interests of the community. The coalition believes a number of other alterations should be made to the Bill by the Attorney-General and they will be pointed out in further debate. If the Bill passes this House it will be in a form significantly different from that in which it was introduced. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr JOHN (Bendigo East). Debate adjourned until next day.

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move:

That the House do now adjourn. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1491

Roadworks in Queen Street, North Fitzroy Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - I direct to the Minister for Transport and, in his absence, the Treasurer, a problem associated with shopkeepers in North Fitzroy. This morning I was invited to attend a meeting of a group of shopkeepers at Queen Street, North Fitzroy, where there was a protest on behalf of small businessmen and shopkeepers due to the implementation of road works. I understand that the area is in the electorate of Richmond, and that the honourable member for Richmond has written on behalf of the shopkeepers to the authorities concerned. I have copies of that correspondence and I make them available to the Minister. The point of the complaint is that the road works are ruining the car parking opportunities for the businesses concerned. I request that the Treasurer ask the Minister for Transport to contact the Chairman of the VIC ROADS to urge him to discuss this issue with the local traders, because they will be ruined unless action is taken as soon as possible. Transport assistance scheme Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport the Victorian patient transport assistance scheme. In the past people who have had to visit medical practitioners, particularly those travelling from country areas to metropolitan Melbourne, have received reimbursement for the cost of that travel. Commonwealth card holders were issued with a voucher in advance of their travel. The reimbursement was on the basis of the cost of V-Line travel at the economy-class rate. From 1 October 1990 the administration of the scheme was changed so that Commonwealth card holders travelling to Melbourne from rural areas must pay for a concessional travel ticket and then seek reimbursement for the cost of that ticket. Reimbursements are now made from the regional office of Health Department Victoria. Commonwealth card holders in Wangaratta who have to travel to Melbourne for medical reasons have experienced great difficulty with this system. Many pensioners are on limited incomes and generally live from week to week as social security payments are made to them. They have little excess money to pay for their travel requirements. I have received representations from the Aged and Disabilities Services Coordinator from the City of Wangaratta, Ms Heywood, who wrote to the regional officer of Health Department Victoria. The reply from that regional office details the change in the method of payment. I ask the Minister for Transport to investigate why there has been a change in the method of payment for Commonwealth card holders who require reimbursement for their travel and whether the Minister, in conjunction with Health Department Victoria, can investigate reverting to the original scheme where pensioners who travel to Melbourne for medical reasons are allocated a ticket prior to travelling. We need the reverse si~ation where, as I have indicated, they have to seek reimbursement after the travel has been undertaken. I seek the assistance of the Ministry in clarifying and reverting to the original position. ADJOURNMENT

1492 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Light rail service for outer suburbs Mr GAVIN (Coburg) - The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Transport. It concerns the need for more and better quality public transport vehicles in the outer suburbs such as Sunbury, Melton, Bacchus Marsh and Craigieburn, which suffer from overcrowding on trains at peak periods.

Overcrowding automatically raises concerns about safety because passengers travelling to and from the central business district are required to stand for long periods. At peak periods all the V/Line services are fully stretched and almost every vehicle is used. The inability to handle patronage is of concern to some people who believe the government should replace rail services with buses.

I urge the Minister to consider the British and European services. They now use sprinters, which are light diesel rail passenger vehicles used on non-electrified lines. The provincial railway, which is an offshoot of the British Rail system - the ugly duckling which is now a swan - is starting to use sprinters and has recorded a 24 per cent growth in patronage in the past four years.

Sprinters are regarded as the next generation vehicle on non-electrified lines. They are of a much higher quality and they have some of the following benefits: they cost 50 per cent less to operate than loco-hauled trains; they have a driver's compartment at each end; they can be self-shunted; maintenance costs are reduced because they are designed for less maintenance; they have easily replaced parts; and they can operate as single or multiple units of up to eight car trains which means they are very flexible.

They are driver-operated and they are faster than all the other comfortable vehicles on non-electrified lines because, depending on the class of sprinter, they can travel at speeds of between 120 and 160 kilometres an hour; they are light so they cause less track wear with a corresponding saving on track maintenance costs; they are provided with public address systems and cab-to-cab communications; and they can also be provided with radios so they are in contact with stations. They are the benefits the sprinters provide in operational terms.

As I said, they are light diesel rail passenger vehicles and should be introduced in the outer suburbs on routes that are not electrified. If they were introduced there would be an automatic increase in the use of the service. The present service cannot handle the demand. During peak periods particularly, because patronage is increasing, people have to stand.

If the sprinters were introduced in Melbourne they would be welcomed by passengers and communities would be sprinting to work in the city. I understand the Minister is in the process of having discussions with his Federal counterpart. I ask the Minister to impress upon him the need to assist the Victorian government in providing sprinters in the outer suburbs. I would like to see them introduced in the service operating from Sunbury to assist commuters who wish to live in the fresh air and travel to Melbourne to work. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1493

Primary schooling in Blackburn South Mr PESCOTI (Bennettswood) -I direct to the attention of the Treasurer, who is at the table, the farce of primary school education in Blackbum South in my electorate, and 1 ask him to take up the matter with the Minister for Education and Training in the other place. Some four or five years ago a decision was taken to amalgamate four primary schools into one so-called super-school, the Orchard Grove Primary School. The so-called super-school has become a super mess as it has caused enormous disruption to every primary school student in Blackburn South. Because of its incompetence in overseeing the changes that were to occur, the Ministry of Education and Training is no closer to solving the problems. 1 have a letter from the previous Minister for Education, the current Premier, which she wrote to me in January 1989 and which states: ... a delay in the building program of twelve months would have had severe implications for the educational program available to students on the Warrawong, Killoura and Blackbum South campuses. The delay is now more than twelve months, and the letter is an admission from the previous Minister that students would suffer not only because of lack of facilities associated with primary schools but also because of the educational program. Over the past three or four years articles have appeared from time to time in the local press explaining to the community what a wonderful thing the super-school will be. The stage the matter has now reached was predicted when it began - parents, those attending public meetings and many other people, including myself, predicted that the Ministry was not capable of handling the matter. The Ministry was told that its approach to the construction of the super-school would fail. Primary schooling in Blackburn South has already been disrupted for two calendar years; it is currently in its third year of disruption and it is likely that the problems will continue for a fourth year because the Ministry of Education and Training will not get on with the job and supervise the changes that were to be made some three or four years ago. 1 ask the Treasurer to request the Minister for Education and Training to take a personal interest in what is happening in Blackbum South and ensure that the Minister gets back to me with an assurance that he will solve the problems and provide proper schooling for children in that area. Road funding in country areas Mr J. F. McGRATH (WarrnambooI) - 1 direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport the lack of road funding in Victoria and the closure of a road in Warrnambool brought about by the collapse of a bridge. Since the last Federal election Federal and State governments have not had much pressure applied to them over road funding and funds have not been disbursed as they should have been. ADJOURNMENT

1494 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

I direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the Victorian road network, particularly throughout rural Victoria, is declining at a rapid rate. It is a regular occurrence for teams from various municipalities to be sent out with specific directions to rip up parts of roads and leave them as gravel because that is the most affordable course of action. This is because local government has, by and large, picked up its responsibilities and part of the State's responsibility in the past five years in relation to road funding. I direct the Minister's attention to this fact and ask him to approach his colleague, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the Treasurer for that matter with a view to attracting some of the enormous revenue that will come into government coffers as a result of red light cameras and speed cameras being introduced as part of the safety measures. Road surfaces are as vital a part of road safety as are the road safety messages that the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services have been displaying, in an endeavour to educate our drivers on the road. I raise the issue not only as a fundamental service to rural people but a fundamental message in relation to road safety. We have 10 ()()() bridges in this State, the majority of which are made out of wood. They are ready to fail in the next five years, and if we do not do something about addressing that problem we will have a major closure of road networks throughout Victoria. I call on the Minister to address this issue and do something about the debilitating road works, and by doing so, improve road safety in Victoria - a challenge that I believe all members in this House must honour. State aid to farmers Mr F. P. SHEEHAN (Ballarat South) - I refer the Treasurer to recent widespread discussions regarding assistance for farmers, specifically those farmers who have made contact with me from the Wimmera-Mallee region, and I raise the issue because of a press report this morning in the Herald-Sun, which refers to rural aid funding being made available by the Federal government in conjunction with the State government. The article states: Increases in rural aid funding was a more appropriate way to target assistance for the rural downturn than prOviding subsidies for farm products. The person speaking is Mr John Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry and he continues: More than one-third of the rural adjustment funds of $57.5 million will go towards payments to non-viable farmers who want to leave the land because of the rural crisis. The rest will be spent on helping farmers in difficulty restructure their loans or provide financial assistance to help them stay on the land. The rural counselling program will also get $2.6 million over the next three years to enable it to double the number of counsellors it provides. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1495

I raise this matter because the rural downturn has been acknowledged as one of the worst this country has seen for quite a long time. It is not only affecting people on fanns; it affects people in small rural businesses, and no doubt it will eventually affect the metropolitan area in some greater way than it is at the moment. After having made a couple of visits to the Wimrnera-Mallee area I am struck by the fact that the options for diversification of farming activity are very limited. I visited a couple of places that had diversified into a range of other areas such as away from wheat and wool farming and into chicken farming. Some are developing pullets to a stage where they are able to be sent to a slaughterhouse; squabs -nestling pigeons - have been developed for use in a niche market in the metropolitan area; and one farmer has even developed a bookkeeping system that he is selling to people all over Australia. So the diversification is there but perhaps not to the extent that it is available to people in the metropolitan area. I raise this matter because from reading the article in the Herald-Sun it seems that we need to allow the money available from the Federal government to be used more flexibly in order to be of greater benefit to the farming community and to the small business community in rural areas. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need to --

Mr Steggall interjected.

Mr F. P. SHEEHAN - Your area of Swan Hill is one of the areas I am talking about. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member should ignore interjections. The honourable member for Swan Hill is out of order.

Mr F. P. SHEEHAN - He wants me to get to the point; I thought I was making the point very validly. Obviously he does not know what the point is. I should like the Treasurer to give an explanation to the House and myself on how he may be able to provide greater flexibility or induce the Federal government to make available greater flexibility in the conditions that apply to the money that has been made available. Places like Swan Hill would greatly benefit from this, along with other areas that the honourable member for Swan Hill represents. The amount of money is important, but the way in which it is sent and given to people is also very important. It ought to be developed in such a way that the maintenance of farms is a prime motivation rather than trying to reduce the number of farmers, although --

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Victorian AIDS Council advertisements Dr WELLS (Dromana) - I refer my comments to the Treasurer at the table for the Premier. They relate to the subject of homosexuality, a matter I raised in the House on 29 August last year during the adjournment debate. I subsequently wrote to the Premier sending her a copy of the advertisements to which I referred and I have received no response. ADJOURNMENT

1496 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

The advertisements purport to promote safe sex between young men. One of the advertisements has a photograph of two young men kissing and says: Say yes to safe sex. Making the first move might be scary, but more guys than you think have sex with other guys. It's natural, and if you're safe you'll have a great time. And what's safe? Kissing, cuddling, licking, stroking, wanking, oral sex ... vaginal and anal sex with condoms...

And SO it goes on. On the last occasion I chose not to mention the details but I do so now because I have had no response from the government. Another advertisement says: The myth that sex only equals intercourse is dispelled: a diversity of sexual behaviours is encouraged ... Opponents to the two boys kissing advertisement have been very vocal, predicably right wing and morally conservative. I raise this matter because these advertisements were produced by the Victorian AIDS Council using taxpayers' funds. Because I have had no denial from the Premier concerning the government's support for this matter I now charge her and the government with supporting the promotion of homosexuality. Those advertisements are not just about safe sex, they encourage young men to take the lead in a new activity; they promote homosexuality and that is not good enough. One of the advertisements says that those who oppose the promotion of homosexuality are right wing, morally conservative and a minority - that is not the case. The Victorian community has been very offended by these advertisements which, it is said, have appeared only in five universities. Recently I was at another tertiary institution in Victoria on official duties and these advertisements, months later, were spread far and wide throughout that institution. It is not something that has died out, it is being promoted. I assume that money is still being provided by the Victorian AIDS Council for these advertisements and that means that taxpayers' funds are still being provided. We have had no denial from the government, no withdrawal of funds, and it is about time we heard something about it. It is for that reason I make this serious charge against the government that it is promoting homosexuality using taxpayers' funds. Again I ask the Premier to respond to the speech I made in this House on the adjournment debate on 29 August and to my latest communication. I ask that the government state clearly that it is not in favour of promoting homosexuality and that it request the Victorian AIDS Council to rewrite the advertisements. I am not objecting to the promotion of safe sex to try to reach the homosexual community; I am objecting on behalf of Victoria, specifically my electorate, where I continue to receive complaints about the advertisements. I am objecting to the promotion of homosexuality. It is not good enough. We do not accept the government's silence on this matter; in this case silence is tantamount to guilt. We require a change. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1497

I invite the Premier to fulfil her constitutional responsibilities and respond to matters raised during debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting. Information Deli Mrs GARBUTI (Greensborough) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Community Services concerns the future of the Information DeIi located next to Flinders Street railway station clocks - a very accessible position. I understand that in the past the government has supported this information service to the tune of $100 000 but recent press reports indicate the Information DeIi may close or that its future is very doubtful. The service provides an after-hours facility, and is open well into the night. Obviously it has been very successful in meeting the needs of young people. I have received a letter from a constituent who teaches at Turana. She has forwarded to me letters from four boys who previously used the service, obviously before being accommodated at Turana. Without mentioning their names, some of the comments made by the boys are interesting. One states: A lot of homeless kids used that facility and if you take that away they won't have a shoulder to cry on. More to the point is the second letter, part of which states: A lot of kids and people will have a bed and food which will help them look for a place in the future and look for a job and go to school because there is a big percentage of people and kids who have been thrown out of their home and not wanted by anyone and just imagine how hard it is for us kids who have no place to go. Another says:

I have been involved in the Infonnation DeH for the past four months. I am sorry to hear that the Information DeH will be closing down. It helps you out a lot in a way that if you have not had food or a shower they provide you with both and if you need bus tickets they provide you with tickets in case you need a ticket for a job interview or to get back to where you might live and if you do not have a place to live they try and provide you with one. Those comments are directly from people who have used the service. The teacher is able to confirm those comments. In her letter she states:

The boys who were familiar with the Information Deli were in the 14 to 16 age group, no money, no food and this contact seemed to be a sympathetic and positive experience for these boys. With their lack of education and adult support they are pretty powerless and unable to make their plight known. It does enable them to find a bed for the night, a shower, food and travel tickets around the city as well as less visible aid and support. I will be pleased if the Minister could comment on the proposed closure of the Information Deli because it has strong support from the people who are in a position to know - those who actually need and use the service. Obviously it provides a service for those most in need. ADJOURNMENT

1498 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

I express concern if the future of that service is in doubt and I ask for some direct information from the Minister. Glen Waverley Heights Primary School Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education and Training concerning the Glen Waverley Heights Primary School. Recently the devices in the school for detecting burglars were taken out of the main administration block. The school sought permission from the local area committee to have the building secured again and the cost of the work came to a total of $1500. The school thought the account should be taken up by the local area committee but the bill has been sent back to the school for payment As the sensors were taken from the school by the local area committee in the first place, it seems extremely unfair. The SPEAKER - Order! The time for raising matters on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting has expired. Responses Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services) - I thank the honourable member for Greensborough for raising the matter of the Information Deli, which provides an information and access service for homeless young people and operates after hours at the delicatessen location at the Hinders Street railway station. For eighteen months the Information Deli has been operating under a committee of management comprised of representatives from Community Services Victoria, the Salvation Army, members of the general community, and the Melbourne City Council. The committee of management has been having a number of difficulties in fulfilling its role. On 15 April the Melbourne City Council passed a resolution indicating that it would be prepared to assume responsibility for the service on an interim basis over the next three months or so to allow the management structure of the Information Deli to be explored and properly set up. I am interested in having the service provided at the Information Dell managed by a proper community-based committee of management with the appropriate representation, to be determined during this interim period. Officers of CSV are having discussions with the Melbourne City Council on its offer and I assume a decision will be made on that in the near future. I do not want to see the Information Dell closed. It is important that such a worthwhile and relevant service is continued as it is offered to young people at a central point, to which they come from all over the State. The service is a success; it is relevant to the kids; and I am determined that it will not close. Funding for the service was provided as a Supported Assisted Accommodation Program (SAAP) demonstration project and from the office of the Youth Affairs Division, and philanthropic trusts have made some contribution to the service. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1499

I am pleased to see that the letters forwarded to me and others have been written by kids. The letters express sincerely the feelings of kids who have used the Information Deli, which has provided a service to hundreds and hundre9s of kids. The kids are determined to let people know - members of Parliament in general and me as the Minister responsible - what they expect from such a service. They have done a good job of bringing the matter to the attention of a number of people. I give the honourable member for Greensborough an assurance that the Information Dell will not close. Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The honourable member for Berwick raised a matter in my absence. I think he was on his feet for only some 30 seconds or a minute. Mr W. D. McGrath - That's all the time you should need to ask a question! Mr SPYKER - The Deputy Leader of the National Party indicates that is all the time honourable members should need to ask a question; I think in the future he should be reminded of that. The honourable member for Berwick raised a matter about roadworks in Queens Parade and expressed concern about the impact the work could have on some of the small businesses in the area. I am advised some construction work is being undertaken there to put in a tram safety zone and a right-hand turn arrow. The work may result in a loss of car parking spaces. Following the concerns expressed to me yesterday, I put the road construction work on hold, subject to having discussions with the City of Fitzroy, although everybody is in agreement that the tram safety zone and the right-hand turn arrow would be a good thing. The discussions are about retaining the maximum number of car parking spaces. I understand the matter will be dealt with at the Fitzroy Oty Council meeting to be held on Monday night. Mr Richardson interjected. Mr SPYKER - I am advised they call themselves independents; if the honourable member for Forest Hill identifies independents with Liberals, perhaps I should advise the independent Fitzroy councillors that the honourable member for Forest Hill refers to them as Liberals! I hope the issue can be resolved with the Fitzroy councillors and also that traders' livelihoods are taken into consideration. The honourable member for Murray Valley raised the concerns of his constituents, who would be mainly pensioner or Commonwealth cardholders, about the Victorian Patient Transport Assistance Scheme. The honourable member said that these people are required to pay for their transport tickets and seek reimbursement afterwards, which means there are delays in obtaining that reimbursement. As he explained, the system prior to October last year was that the people would obtain the ticket first and then -- ADJOURNMENT

1500 ASSEMBLY ThW'Sday, 18 Apri11991

Mr W. D. McGrath interjected. Mr SPYKER - I am not aware of the details of the scheme because it is operated in conjunction with Health Department Victoria. I assure the honourable member for Murray Valley that I want to assist him and the people affected. As he said, people who are on pensions rely heavily on their income, and having to pay transport fares takes a fair whack out of their pensions, especially if they need to come to Melbourne for medical treatment.

I shall take up the matter with my Ministry and also with Health Department Victoria to see what we can do to make sure we do not cause hardship to pensioners in his electorate and country Victoria generally.

The honourable member for Coburg raised with me a very exciting project involving sprinters, which are light rail vehicles. As the honourable member said, the sprinter system works extraordinarily well in Britain. The important aspect of the sprinters is that they are lightweight vehicles and the operating and maintenance costs are about 50 per cent lower than for conventional rail vehicles.

Mr Pescott interjected.

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Coburg is here. He is the secretary of our caucus committee on transport and, indeed, he does a tremendous job in dealing with transport issues.

The honourable member suggested the sprinter system would have enormous benefits in country Victoria, particularly for commuters who like to live in rural Victoria in a regional setting but whose jobs require them to travel to Melbourne. I am sure all honourable members would agree that Melbourne is very much an overcrowded city and we should encourage people to live in regional areas and come to the city when they need to.

The sprinters are particularly good at picking up in speed, and therefore they provide much quicker access to the metropolitan area from regional Victoria. The honourable member for Coburg said he had received representations from a community in Sunbury to have the sprinter system introduced in Victoria. I have accepted that proposition; it would be desirable to have sprinters operating from regional areas to Melbourne.

Following an indication from the Federal government that it is interested in funding these sorts of projects, I am making representations for funding to be made available for the sprinter project. I shall advise the honourable member as soon as possible whether I am successful in that regard.

The honourable member for Warmambool raised the matter of road funding and its impact on his own electorate and other parts of rural Victoria. I accept the argument that he has put forward. It is unfortunate to see sealed roads being graded up and returned to gravel. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1501

He also raised his concern that hundreds of bridges around the State are in a poor condition. I can assure him that checking does occur to make sure that the bridges are in reasonable condition; they are checked out as carefully as possible to ensure their roadworthiness. I am sure I do not need to remind the honourable member of the economic restraints under which both the State and Federal governments are placed: we can only divide up the amount of cake that we have. However, after the special Premiers Conference in May, I hope to set in train a procedure whereby there is much more cooperation between the Federal, State and local government road funding authorities. Sometimes we seem to be at cross purposes when we talk about what is being funded. I hope to have such matters as road funding clarified at the special Premiers Conference in May. Mter the conference I intend to call representatives of the three parties together to work out our priorities. Suggestions are made from time to time that we somehow over-engineer some of our pet projects, so a more careful consideration of some such projects is needed so that, for example, unnecessary beautification works are not undertaken. In other words, we should always be looking at how to drive the road-funding dollar further. I am conscious of the matters raised by the honourable member for Warrnambool, because they are drawn to my attention when I travel throughout rural Victoria. Bad roads are not the safe roads we would like them to be. Although, as he said, we are putting a lot of work into road safety, the safeness of our roads is an important issue. I hope to get clarification of the Federal government's intentions at next month's conference, after which I shall sit down with representatives of the three tiers of government to see how we can share road funding. Although the cake was smaller this financial year a larger percentage of it has been spent in rural Victoria than has been the case in previous years' Budgets. The honourable member also talked about the money raised by speed and red light cameras and the hypothecation of petrol taxes. Not much enthusiasm was expressed when the hypothecation of petrol taxes was mentioned at the Federal level. As I said, we need to look at the resources provided in the transport, health, education and community services areas; and as a community we must carefully work out our priorities so that each of those areas receives appropriate funding.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The honourable member for Bennettswood raised a matter concerning primary school education in the Blackbum South area, and I shall refer that to the Minister for Education and Training for his consideration. The honourable member for Dromana raised a matter about homosexuality. Obviously there are people he has talked to who are interested in the matter, because he said he has raised it before. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister. Mr Pescott interjected. ADJOURNMENT

1502 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

Mr ROPER - I do not know whether it involves any of the members of his panel! The honourable member for Glen Waverley did not have much of a chance to raise the matter he wanted to in the 40 seconds or so available to him. Nevertheless I shall direct to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training the issue he raised.

The honourable member for Ballarat South raised the important issue of assistance to rural Australia. Over the past 24 hours I have received additional information about the details of the Commonwealth proposal, which has added to my disappointment of last night because the funds are not nearly adequate and what funds there are are distributed to parts Band C rather than to Part A of the Commonwealth rural adjustment scheme.

Certainly I shall raise the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Ballarat South with the Honourable John Kerin, whom I have always found to be very approachable on this and other matters. I certainly hope we are able to persuade him to change the thrust of the decision because where we wanted the emphasis - when I say "we" I think it would fair to say the Rural Finance Corporation and those with whom we consulted such as the Victorian Farmers Federation -was particularly on Part A which is really about long-term assistance to farmers and is ongoing. It is regretted there is little money for Part A. Victoria asked for $14 million for Part A and under this arrangement the best we could get was a $2.7 million increase.

Mr Jasper interjected.

Mr ROPER - No, Part A does not require matching. Most of the money referred to in the statement yesterday was money that is already existing because it was suggested there was $61 million for Part A, $49 million of which is already existing commitment and $12 million is for new commitments and, as I say, on the basis of what currently occurs there would be about $2.7 million for Victoria.

This would mean Victoria would be able only to subsidise about $30 million in capital terms which is quite inadequate for the problems facing especially the wool and wheat industries. One could say the Commonwealth has made that up by funds it is proposing under Part B and Part C.

I shall deal with Part C first. Firstly, we do not believe there will be that level of take up of Part C that would use the $50 million that is set aside. Secondly, if this whole amount were committed it would mean one of two things: an extreme exodus of farmers within two years which would have disastrous effects on land values or alternatively a significant number of farmers would remain on their land and attempt to survive with little hope of them paying their way. Although we think there is a need for additional money under Part C and indeed a new scheme that is more a social security oriented scheme and would allow farmers to stay on their land rather than forcing them within two years to leave, we would rather see that a lot of those farmers were redirected. If the Commonwealth has them, they should be redirected to Part A where I think we could - and I am sure Victoria is not the only State with this view - do far better with them. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday. 18 April 1991 ASSEMBLY 1503

Last night I was asked about the matching situation relating to Part B. It is not simply a matter of matching, it is a matter of looking at the scheme. Firstly, the Commonwealth has described the new scheme as the debt reconstruction ~d interest subsidy which would be material originally under Part A and would have gone for a longer term. However, it has removed it to Part B to reduce the term and force the States into a matching situation. A large proportion of assistance to New South Wales is not to the long-term rural adjustments that would traditionally be used, it is on interest subsidy so New South Wales may be caught by the change in this arrangement. Our main concern is we would use carry-on finance - and that is fine. It was fine in the last bad crop situation where at the time of the next crop international prices were still reasonable and people were able to repay the carry-on finance fairly quickly. The Rural Finance Corporation has looked for me at what the effect might be with a lot of carry-on finance. Each farm is different and each area is different but the advice I have received is that an 800 tonne farm in both the Wimmera and Mallee would, even after a significant interest subsidy, still not have sufficient to meet its obligations. So it would cost the farm more to put the crop in and to live than it would actually get back. Last night after the adjournment of the House we were discussing a seven-bag crop in the Mallee. The Wimmera has slightly higher yields. But even farmers with no debt, with reduced living expenses and with 800 tonnes of wheat would still not be able to obtain or repay that loan. At the l000-tonne level any farmers with existing debt - and the ones who are in particular difficulty have existing debt levels - would not break even under this arrangement, even with a subsidy. In the Mallee farmers, even at the 1200-tonne level, with debt would still be facing potential difficulty. Firstly, the government is saying to the Commonwealth that it is pleased there has been some movement forward, but it does not believe it is sufficient to deaI with the multitude of problems existing in the wool and wheat areas. Secondly, with the amount of money the Commonwealth has said it is willing to provide we believe farmers can be more effectively assisted if greater attention is placed on Part A of the national rural assistance scheme. The provisions of Part B seem to imply that the scheme is available to all who seek it. That is not the case. Farmers have to meet eligibility criteria tests and have reasonable long-term prospects to be eligible: I note the two wheat farmers in the House are not disagreeing. On the smaller farms there would be great difficulty, even if carry-on finance was given, in meeting such criteria. The government has communicated its concerns to the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him. He has called a meeting of relevant Ministers in May. The government will undertake further work and is having further discussions with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) on the approach that should be adopted. We are working with the VFF, and the Rural Finance Corporation has recently assisted the federation by prOviding a ADJOURNMENT

1504 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 18 April 1991

$20 000 grant for a counselling service. The government is prepared to get in and assist in the rural counselling area, but I regret that that is no substitution for a capacity to assist more farmers than it can currently under Part A. Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 6.33 p.nt. until Tuesday, 23 April QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 1505

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions on rwtice were circulated -

GOVERNMENT MEDIA UNIT

(Question No. 616) Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Premier: What staff have journalists' qualifications and are employed either full or part time within­ (a) the Ministry; (b) the department; or (c) any of its agencies, indicating in each case - (i) their namei (ii) when were they employedi (iii) the last media outlet they worked fori (iv) their rate of paYi and (v) whether or not they ever worked within the Government Media Unit? Ms KIRNER (premier) - The answer is: I am informed that comprehensive provision of this information would require an audit of the qualifications of all staff employed and the time and resources needed for this cannot be justified. However, this information has been provided where an employee's previous journalistic experience can be readily identified, or where the position held by an employee is in the publicity category and is detailed below. Included in the information for my department are employees located in the Liberal Party office at Parliament House and officers who have now been permanently transferred to other departments. The employees' names and the last media outlet at which they worked have not been provided as this would breach personal oonfidentiality. I have also been advised that no employees at the Office of the Governor, the Victorian Relief Committee or the Office of the Auditor-General have journalists' qualifications.

DEP ARlMENT OF niE PREMIER AND CABINET (including the Office of the Ombudsman)

POSmON WHEN FIRST RATE OF EVER EMPLOYED EMPLOYED PAY IN MEDIA UNIT $

Press secretary level 5 29.2.88 56022 Yes Premier's Media Adviser Press Secretary level 5 17.7.89 56022 Yes Premier's Press Secretary Press Secretary level 4 16.9.85 50921 Yes Press Secretary level 2 2.7.90 43136 Yes Press Secretary level 4 20.6.89 50921 No Press Secretary level 1 24.7.89 35 015 - 36 578 No "Press Secretary level 1 17.8.90 35 015 - 36 578 Yes

78312/91-49 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

1506 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

POSmON WHEN FIRST RATE OF EVER EMPLOYED EMPLOYED PAY IN MEDIA UNIT $

·Press Secretary level 1 17.9.90 35 015 - 36 578 Yes ·Press Secretary leve13 18.7.88 49210 Yes ·Press Secretary leve12 24.1.90 43 136 - 45 092 Yes

(·Permanently transferred to other departments but paid for out of DPC budget for 1990-91. This was an interim arrangement. In future years the budget allocation will be included in each of the relevant portfolios.)

PUBUC SERVICE BOARD (Including the Promotions Appeal Board)

Administrative Officer ADM-7 4.6.90 43136-45092 No Administrative Officer ADM-7 14.9.87 43 136 - 45 092 No

RETIREMENT COUNSELLING - DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET

(Question No. 652) Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) asked the Premier: In regard to each department, agency and authority within the Minister's administration: 1. How many retirement counselling seminars have been government funded or sponsored in 1989-90, indicating - (a) how many employees having reached 50 years of age have attended; (b) what person or organisation conducted the seminars, indicating the nwnbers that could be accommodated at each seminar; and (c) how many employees were eligible to apply to attend these seminars? 2. What action is being taken to provide retirement counselling to employees within the Minister's administration? Ms KIRNER (premier) - The answer is: I am informed that no retirement counselling seminars were directly funded or sponsored by my department, or any of the agencies for which I have portfolio responsibility in 1989-90. However, a nwnber of organisations such as the VPSA and National Mutual conduct retirement counselling seminars which are utilised by staff in my portfolio. Information is circulated to employees when the opportunity to attend retirement counselling seminars run by any such organisations arises. Where appropriate, the cost of attendance is met by the agency. Attendance of staff at seminars varies across my portfolio. For the Office of the Governor and the Victorian Relief Committee, no employees have attended seminars. For the Office of the Auditor-General, management of that office is not aware of any employees who attended any seminars. For the remaining agencies in my portfolio (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Public Service Board, Office of the Ombudsman, Promotions Appeal Board) the number of employees who attended retirement counselling in 1989-90 is difficult to establish as attendance QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 1507

will, in general, only be recorded on personnel records when there was a cost for attendance which was met by the department or agency. In some instances, the cost of attendance is met by the employee; in the case of the retirement counselling offered by superannuation boards, there is no cost. All employees are entitled to apply to attend retirement counselling seminars, and in most cases leave will be given to attend. The estimated total number of employees aged 50 or over during the course of 1989-90 in my department and agencies in my portfolio is BO.

CANTEEN SERVICES - DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET

(Question No. 694) Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Premier: 1. Whether a canteen service operates within her Ministry or any of its agencies; if so, in respect of each canteen - (a) is the canteen subsidised and how much was the subsidy in 1989-90, indicating the percentage of all costs met by subsidy; (b) are all employees entitled to attend the canteen; (c) are non-departmental people able to gain access to the facility, and in the event that they are what is the condition of entry; (d) is the canteen operated by government staff or an outside contractor; (e) what other subsidised benefits are available to staff employed by the department or any of its agencies; (f) is any special equipment available to employees either free, at cost or subsidised, please give details? 2. Whether an employees' social club exists? 3. Whether an employees' credit cooperative exists? 4. Whether an employees' buying cooperative exists; if so, are other than departmental staff able to access the scheme? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The answer is: I am informed that: 1. (a)-(d) Agencies in my portfolio do not operate canteens. (e)-(f) There are no benefits given to staff employed in the portfolio which are subsidised, nor is any special equipment made available to them. Any facilities available to staff, such as "living quarters for staff required for duty at Government House, are not predominantly for their private use but are intrinsic to the duties for which they are employed. 2-4. These are not matters within my portfolio responsibilities. Any such clubs or oooperatives are run independently by the staff or the Victorian Public Service Association

COMPLAINT RE CREDIT CHECK

(Question No. 723) Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Premier: Whether she has received a complaint from the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council, Mr J. Halfpenny, concerning a credit check by a government agency into his personal affairs: if so, what action (if any) has been taken on Mr Halfpenny's complaint, indicating the results of any such action? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

1508 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The answer is: I am infonned that no such fonnal complaint has been received.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES - MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 795) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Community Services, for the Minister for Aboriginal Mfairs: 1. Whether the Minister will advise of any employment positions that will be available within the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in 1991 for - (a) schoolleavers with their V.C.E. certificates; and (b) tertiary graduates? 2 Whether staff recruitments within the office have been increased or reduced, indicating by what amount in respect of the electoral province of Geelong and the electoral district of South Barwon? 3. What new employment initiatives by the office will locally benefit Geelong school leavers and tertiary graduates in 1991 and beyond? Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Aboriginal Mfairs is: 1. Applicants for a position in the Public Service are assessed according to selection criteria for the vacant position These selection criteria may specify mandatory or desirable educational qualifications. It is the general practice to advertise all positions in the office externally and internally in the Victorian Public Service. This means that persons who are not Public Service officers have the opportunity to apply for the vacancies that may arise. Graduates who are not Public Service officers, and school leavers may compete against other external applicants. It is not possible to predict the number of positions that will be available within the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in 1991. The number of vacancies will depend on the number of new positions, the number of positions declared. surplus, and the number of promotions, transfers and resignations amongst Public Service officers working in the office. 2 No staff members from the office live in those electorates. 3. The office does not have unique employment initiatives separate from those arranged by the Public Service Board.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES - MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

(Question No. 796) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Attorney-General, for the Minister for Consumer Affairs: 1. Whether the Minister will advise of any employment positions that will be available within the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in 1991 for - (a) schoolleavers with their VCE certificates; and (b) tertiary graduates? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 1509

2. Whether staff recruitments within the Ministry have been increased or reduced, indicating by what amount in respect of the electoral province of Geelong and the electoral district of South Barwon? 3. What new employment initiatives by the Ministry will locally benefit Geelong school leavers and tertiary graduates in 1991 and beyond? Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Consumer Affairs is: 1. Applicants for a position in the Public Service are assessed according to selection criteria for the vacant position These selection criteria may specify mandatory or desirable educational qualifications. It is the general practice to advertise vacancies internally first, and then if no Public Service applicant meets the selection criteria, to advertise externally. This means that persons who are not Public Service officers may not have the opportunity to apply for some vacancies that arise. Graduates who are not Public Service officers, and schoolleavers must compete against other external applicants. It is not possible to predict the number of positions that will be available within the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in 1991. The number of vacancies will depend on the number of new positions, the number of positions declared surplus, and the number of promotions, transfers and resignations amongst Public Service officers working in the Ministry. 2. The time and resources required to ascertain whether Ministry staff live in those electorates cannot be justified. 3. The Ministry does not have unique employment initiatives separate from those arranged by the Public Service Board. QUESTIONS ON NonCE

1510 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated - OFF-PEAK SHOPPERS TAXI SERVICES

(Question No. 476) Mr COOPER (Mornington) asked the Minister for Transport: In relation to the provision of the off-peak shoppers taxi service between Hastings and MOmington by the Met for each of the financial years 1987-88, 1988-89 and from 1 July 1989 to 31 March 1990: 1. What has been the total cost incurred and income received, respectively? 2. How many passengers have used the service in each month since its inception? 3. Which taxi proprietors have provided the service? Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The answer is: 1. Year Cost Income 1987-88 $17585.18 $1063.55 1988-89 $27172.68 $2226.80 1989-90 $27457.51· $1397.25# • To April 30 inclusive # To March 12 inclusive The service commenced operation in October, 1987. It should be noted that the income received is understated because the multi-modal ticketing system allows ticket purchases on other modes and at ticket agencies. The income shown above is rollected by the taxi operator. 2. The total number of passengers carried by month and year since the service rommenced is as follows:

Year Month Passengers Total

1987-88 Oct 125 Nov 170 Dec 248 Jan 233 Feb 242 Mar 221 Apr 349 May 334 Jun 495 2417 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 1511

Year Month Passengers Total

1988-89 July 355 Aug 472 Sept 368 Oct 369 Nov 482 Dec 451 Jan 694 Feb 744 Mar 482 Apr 457 May 454 Jun 565 5893 1989-90 July 546 Aug 581 Sept 436 Oct 710 Nov 656 Dec 593 Jan 667 Feb 678 Mar 295 5162

TOTAL 13,472

3. Sandown Taxis operated the service from October 1987 until May 1988. Peninsula Radio Cabs have operated the service from May 1988. The Mornington/Hastings Shopper Service has been examined in the overall bus services review. It has been determined that it is an uneconomical service with insufficient demand to justify its continuance. It is intended to terminate the service by the end of March 1991. The poor utilisation of this service indicates that there is no need for a public transport service on this route at this stage.

POLICE AT LEIGHTON'S BUILDING SITE

(Question No. 741) Mr McNAMARA (Benalla) asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: Whether he will advise honourable members how many police have been used on a week-by-week basis to control the Leighton's building site in St Kilda Road since January 1990, indicating what the cost of police support has been on a weekly basis? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

1512 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - The answer is: Victoria Police did not become significantly involved in providing ongoing police attendance at the Leighton's building site in St Kilda Road until 25 June 1990. From then to 3 November 1990, an average of 1482 person/hours a week were involved at an average weekly support cost of $7890.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND URBAN GROWTH

(Question No. 797) Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) asked the Minister for Planning and Housing: 1. Whether he will advise of any employment positions that will be available within the Department of Planning and Housing in 1991 for: (a) schoolleavers with their VCE certificates; and (b) tertiary graduates? 2 Whether staff recruitments within the department have been increased or reduced, indicating by what amount in respect of the electoral province of Geelong and the electoral district of South Barwon? 3. What new employment initiatives by the department willloca1ly benefit Geelong school leavers and tertiary graduates in 1991 and beyond? Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - The answer supplied by the then Minister for Planning and Urban Growth is: 1. Base grade positions within the Department of Planning and Housing are advertised in the Victorian Public Service Notices and the press as they become available. Applicants are considered on their respective merits to the selection criteria established for the position. Schoolleavers and tertiary graduates must compete on merit for available positions. Opportunities for schoolleavers and tertiary graduates seeking employment on completion of studies in 1990 will be limited by the need to consider placement needs of public sector employees occupying surplus positions. 2 Staff recruitments within the department have declined because of budgetary constraints and participation in public sector redeployment processes. The department has a small representation in Geelong which has always had, and continues to have, minimal recruitment. 3. The department has no such initiatives. Recruitment to any positions will be conducted using a number of criteria which may include educational qualifications. It is not possible to predict how many positions will be filled by Geelong schoolleavers and graduates.

TAXATION ON STATE SUPERANNUATION FUND

(Question No. 865) Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Treasurer: 1. Whether the Taxation Department has taken any action against the government or requested changes to be made to superannuation taxation; if so - (a) what action has been taken; and (b) what changes have been requested? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 1513

2. Whether all public servants covered by the State Superannuation Fund received their full entitlement out of the fund; if not, was any discrepancy caused by the non-payment of government contributions? 3. Whether he will contact all Victorian Public Service officers, and inform them of their superannuation rights and full entitlement? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The answer is: 1. As from 1 July 1988 Victorian public sector superannuation funds became subject to Commonwealth taxation, on the same basis as most other Australian superannuation funds. Certain tax concessions are dependent on public sector superannuation funds complying with the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations of the Commonwealth as from 1 July 1990. In most respects Victorian funds already comply with those regulations but some amendments to legislation and/or trust deeds constituting Victorian funds appear to be required before 1 July 1992 if compliance is to continue. 2. All benefits due to members of the State Superannuation Fund under the State Superannuation Act 1988 are being paid promptly as they fall due. Payments from the Consolidated Fund for its share of benefits are being made to the State Superannuation Board promptly following payment of benefits, in accordance with standing arrangements.