VICTORIA
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT
AUTUMN SESSION 1991
Legislative Council
VOL. 403
[From 14 May 1991 to 6 June 1991J
MELBOURNE: L V. NORTH. GOVERNMENT PRINTER
The Governor His Excellency the Reverend OR JOHN DA VIS McCAUGHEY, AC The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable SIR JOHN McINTOSH YOUNG, AC, KCMG The Ministry [AS FROM 18 JANUARY 1991] Premier The Hon.]. E. Kirner, AM, MP Oepu ty Premier, Attorney-General, The Hon. J. H. Kennan, QC, MP Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Major Projects Minister for Manufacturing and The Hon. O. R White, MLC Industry Development Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and The Hon. C.]. Hogg, MLC Community Affairs Minister for Agriculture The Hon. I. M. J. Baker, MP Minister for Tourism, and Minister for The Hon. S. M. Crabb, fvfP Conservation and Environment Minister for Health The Hon. M. A. Lyster, MLC Minister for Planning and Housing The Hon. A. McCutcheon, MP Minister for Consumer Affairs, and The Hon. B. W. Mier, MLC Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Minister for Labour The Hon. N. A. Pope, MP Minister for Education and Training The Hon. B. T. Pullen, MLC Treasurer The Hon. T. W. Roper, MP Minister for Small Business The Hon. B. J. Rowe, MP Minister for Police and Emergency The Hon. M. J. Sandon, MP Services, and Minister for Corrections Minister for Community Services The Hon. K. P. Setches, MP Minister for Finance The Hon. A. J. Sheehan, MP Minister for Transport The Hon. P. C. Spyker, MP Minister for Sport and Recreation The Hon. N. B. Trezise, fvfP Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet The Hon. R A. Jolly, MP The Governor His Excellency the Reverend DR JOHN DA VIS McCAUGHEY, AC The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable SIR JOHN McINTOSH YOUNG, AC, KCMG The Ministry [AS FROM 16 APRIL 1991] Premier The Hon. J. E. Kirner, AM, MP Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, The Hon. J. H. Kennan, (2(:, MP Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Major Projects Minister for Manufacturing and The Hon. D. R. White, MLC Industry Development Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and The Hon. C. J. Hogg, MLC Community Affairs Minister for Agriculture The Hon. I. M. J. Baker, MP Minister for Tourism, and Minister for The Hon. S. M. Crabb, MP Conservation and Environment Minister for Small Business The Hon. J. D. Harrowfield Minister for Police and Emergency The Hon. M. J. Sandon, MP Minister for Health The Hon. M. A. Lyster, MLC Minister for Planning and Housing The Hon. A. McCutcheon, MP Minister for Consumer Affairs, and The Hon. B. W. Mier, MLC Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Minister for Labour The Hon. N. A. Pope, MP Minister for Education and Training The Hon. B. T. Pullen, MLC Treasurer The Hon. T. W. Roper, MP Services, and Minister for Corrections Minister for Community Services The Hon. K. P. Setches, MP Minister for Finance The Hon. A. J. Sheehan, MP Minister for Transport The Hon. P. C. Spyker, MP Minister for Sport and Recreation The Hon. N. B. Trezise, MP Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet The Hon. R. A. Jolly, MP FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT-FIRST SESSION
Members of the Legislative Council Member Province Party Member Province Party
Ashman, Hon.Gerald Barry Boronia LP Landeryou, Hon. William Doutta Galla ALP Baxter, Hon. William Robert North Eastern NP Albert Best, Hon. Ronald Alexander North Western NP Lawson. Hon. Robert ljiginbotham LP Birrell, Hon. Mark Alexander East Yarra LP Long, Hon. Richard John LP Olamberlain, HCXl. Bruce Western LP ~ter, Hon. Maureen Anne gr~d ALP Anth:J. clean, Hen Jean Boronia ALP Conn , Hen Geoifrey Higinbotham LP Macey, Hon. Reg Mooash LP Philli Mackenzie, Hon. Roderick Gee10ng Ind. Cox, Aon. Geor~e Henry NW\awadin~ LP Alexander CoXSed~, Hon. oan Melbourne est ALP Mier, Hon. Brian William Waverlev ALP Craige, on. Geoffrey Central LP Miles, Hon. John Could Templestowe LP Ronald Highlands Pullen, Hon. Barrv Thomas Melooume ALP Crawford. Hon. George Jika Jib ALP S~, ~on. GiOValuu Melbourne North ALP Robert tOlUO Davidson, Hon. Burwvn Eric Chelsea ALP Skeggs, Hon. Bruce Albert Templestowe LP de Fe~y, Hon. Richai-d Ballarat LP Edward Strac n Smith, Hon. Kenneth South Eastern LP Evans, Hon. David Mylor North Eastern NP Maurice Guest, Hon. lames Vincent Manash LP Suney,Hon.~ddon,QC East Yarra LP Chester Tehan, Hon. Marie Therese Central LP Hall, Hon. Peter Ronald Gippsland NP Hig!l!ands Hallam, Hon. R~er Murray Western NP Th~hanous, Hon. Thee Jw Jib ALP Henshaw, Hon. avid Gee10ng ALP eN es Emest,MBE Van Buren, Hon. Charles Eumemmerring ALP Hogg, Hon. Caroline Jennifer Melbourne North ALP Fred.rick Hunt, Hon. Alm John South Eastern LP Vartv,Hon.~ NW\awading LP Ives, Hon. Robert Stuart Ewnemmerring ALP WalXer, Hon. Evan erbert Melbourne ALP Kennedy, Hon. Cyril James Waverley ALP White, Hon. David Ronald Doutta Galla ALP Knowles, Hon. Robert lan Ballarat LP Wright, Hon. Kenneth lrving North Western NP Kokocinski. Hon.l.icia Melbourne West ALP MaCkenzie
FIfTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT-FIRST SESSION President: THE HON. A. J. HUNT Chairman of Committees: mE HON. K. 1. M. WRIGHT Temporary Chairmen of Committees: The Honourables Joan Coxsedge, D. M. Evans, J. V. C. Guest, D. E. Henshaw, W. A. Landeryo~ Robert Lawson, R. J. Long, G. A. Sgro, and E. H. Walker. Leader of the Government: TIiE HON. D. R. WHITE Deputy Leader of the Government: TIiE HON. C. J. HOGG Leader of the Opposition: THE HON. M. A. BIRRELL Deputy Leader of the Opposition: THE HON. HADDON S1OREY, QC Leader of the National Party: TIiE HON. W. R. BAXTER Deputy Leader of the National Party: THE HON. R M. HALLAM
Heads of Parliamentary Departments Assembly-Clerk of the Parliaments and Oerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. K Boyes Council-Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr A. V. Bray Hansard-Chief Reporter: Mr L. C. Johns Library-Librarian: Mr B. J. Davidson House-Acting Secretary: Mr W. F. McI ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1601 School bus system Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - I raise matters for the attention of the Minister for Education and Training arising from the operation of the school bus system which is paid for by his Ministry and then operated on its behalf by the Ministry of Transport. Recently there have been moves in the Hamilton area to reorganise a number of bus routes, and those moves are ostensibly aimed at making savings on the operation of those services. Officers of the department, or V/Line, which is handling these matters, have given assurances that no family will be disadvantaged by these changes. However, a particular change which affects what is called Cavendish B bus run will, in fact, have very significant and adverse financial impacts on individual families. For instance, in the case of one family, where the bus currently goes past the front door, it will be faced with a 3D-kilometre round trip a day, and the estimated cost for that family is more than $3000 a year. Therefore, my first question is whether the Minister will confirm the assurances being given that no families will be disadvantaged by such a move. The second and associated issue relates to the requirement, because of this rationalisation of putting more students on buses, of children sitting three to a seat but, more importantly, the requirement that children be forced to stand on the bus; up to ten children can stand on the bus for a trip of up to 12 kilometres. The concern about that relates to the children's safety and the dangers to which those standing children are exposed. In the report of a working party that reported to the Minister for Transport on its review of bus safety in September last year, the working party pOinted out at page 20: Standing passengers in a bus face a higher risk of severe injury in a crash, or from sudden braking than do seated passengers; and the risk increases rapidly with speed - speed of the bus and speed of other traffic. The working party agreed that safety would be improved if numbers of standing passengers were reduced, particularly in high speed buses, but highest priority should be given to those standees facing greatest risk, and the total implications of such a reduction should be understood. The concern of the parents is that each night on television they see advertisements sponsored by the government urging people to buckle up in the back seat - I think the normal advertisement shows a kombi type of van. People are being urged to buckle up, and yet children travelling on school bus services can be expected to stand and travel for up to 12 kilometres so standing. I therefore ask the Minister, firstly, for the assurance that no families will be disadvantaged by the change, and secondly, for an assurance that this report on safety on school buses will be followed and that the recommendations of the working party will receive close attention. ADJOURNMENT 1602 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 SEC property, Mentone Hon. ROBERT LAWSON (Higinbotham) - I address my remarks to the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, who is responsible for the State Electricity Commission. I direct his attention to a block of land at the corner of Bourke and Patty streets, Mentone, which, I point out, is in the electorate of the Minister for Transport, Mr Spyker - so, if he were here, he would support what I have to say. Hon. M. A. Lyster interjected. Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - And it is in the province of the Minister for Health; it is just down the street. This land is the property of the State Electricity Commission and has been looked after by the Mordialloc Oty Council for the past twenty years as public open space. The council has kept it neat and looked after it for all that time. However, the council has now been informed by the SEC that it intends to sell this land. The council has written to me to point out- Hon. D. R. White - Which council? Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - The Mordialloc City Council. The council has written to me pointing out that there is no other public open space in the vicinity and that, if this land is lost, the local residents will have no open space near their homes. Therefore, the council asks that this land be vested in the council permanently and kept in perpetuity as public open space. Responses Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - Mr Smith has again raised the issue of the child-care centre proposed by the Board of Works and the Port of Melbourne Authority. It is a separate, new set of questions and I look forward to taking them up with the respective authorities and providing him with a reply in due course. Mr Lawson raises a matter regarding the proposed sale of public open space. I look forward to raising that matter with the SEC and providing him with a response in due course. Hon. C. J. nOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - In reply to Mr Baxter, who raises some very serious questions, I shall pass on his concerns to the Minister for Transport and endeavour to get prompt consideration for them. In answer to Mr Evans, I shall certainly raise the question of the King Valley child-care centre with the Minister for Community Services and direct it to her attention as quickly as I can. Although it involves a relatively small sum of money it may still be extremely difficult for her to find in the budget, but it may be that there is a way in which a composite of groups can put together some of the money. I shall certainly direct it to the attention of the Minister for Community Services. ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1603 Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - Mrs Tehan raised the matter of the centre for autistic children at Mansfield. I took the opportunity of visiting that centre when I visited Mansfield. I had lunch with the staff, parents and children there. As most people who have had anything to do with autistic children know, the people concerned are working in a very difficult area indeed. I was impressed by the efforts they have made in developing relationships with the families and particularly the fact that they spend time with the children's families, helping them to gain skills in handling the children's behaviour in different ways. It seemed to me that they showed a lot of sense in the way that they were approaching the task. The situation at the moment is that I have asked for some opinions to be prepared for me about what we might do. One avenue is, as Mrs Tehan suggests, that I could use my discretion in this matter in regard to the definition of a "school" because it seems the centre is likely to fail to be classified as a school if the normal criteria apply. I take on board Mrs Tehan's suggestion that such action could be taken as an interim step, and that may well provide a way forward to enable work to continue in the appropriate way. At this stage I am not in a position to be any more definitive than that, but I give Mrs Tehan an undertaking to follow that matter through. Having direct contact was qUite helpful in gaining an appreciation of the service currently provided at the centre. Mr Hallam raises what he describes as a source of concern to two shires in relation to the request to use building surveyors. I have no problem in referring that matter to the attention of the Minister for Planning and HOUSing. I would expect that the Honourable Andrew McCutcheon -who has had sixteen years' experience as a counsellor and serving on committees and working with officers - should be able to give it the attention it deserves from the point of view of a person having had to operate in a local government environment. I hope the Minister will be able to consider the matter in some detail. Mr de Fegely referred to the rents set by the Rural Water Commission on a site near the Grampians used by a scouting troop. I undertake to pass on that matter to the Minister for Conservation and Environment for a response. Mr Craige referred to the Romsey Primary School and the adequacy of facilities for the current and growing population. I shall examine that matter further. I am currently in the process of bringing together in a consolidated list proposals from various regions for new schools and improvements so that priorities can be worked out. I shall examine the situation at Romsey in that context. Mr Connard referred to salary claims by school principals. I have had discussions with representatives of school principals and I indicated that I would not deal with the issue until the benchmark was set. A national benchmark has now been agreed to; I have honoured that undertaking and am now dealing with the issue. ADJOURNMENT 1604 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 The concerns raised by Mr Craige and Mr Connard appear to be inconsistent with statements made by the opposition about savings in the education area. It is inconsistent to argue for additional resources for local areas and school principals and at the same time suggest that $400 million can be taken from the education budget. One must have regard to the overall position as well as what is happening in local electorates. Mr Chamberlain referred to changes being considered to the school bus system in Hamilton. He said families should not be disadvantaged, and he also referred to the safety aspect. I shall consider the changes before responding in detail. However, I shall give an unqualified answer to the safety factor: safety is crucial and I shall respond to Mr Chamberlain on the report after I have examined it in detail. There must be parity in terms of services provided, but it is totally unacceptable for children to be at risk. Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - Mr Knowles raised a serious matter, and I thank him for the way he raised it because he has added to my knowledge of how quality psychiatric services are provided in the Ballarat and Central Highlands region. He is correct when he says the option has been put to me for one ward for the Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre, Ballarat Base Hospital and Lakeside Hospital. I have not accepted that option. I am most interested in the proposal outlined by Mr Knowles, albeit briefly, and I invite him to speak further with me about the notion of putting together the psychogeriatric services of the Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre and the rehabilitation services of Lakeside Hospital under the control of Ballarat Base Hospital. The most concerning thing about what Mr Knowles said was that the local people view the matter of boards of management as a diversion from getting on with the job, which must be their priority. Although I find it difficult to absolutely rule out anything at this stage - it would be improper for me to do so - I certainly urge the local people to concentrate on the provision of quality services. I understand from both Mr Knowles and other sources that they are already making a difference in the way psychiatric services are delivered in the area. That is in keeping with what I was saying about priorities and the quality of services offered, and that may be obtained through the integration of psychiatric services with acute medical services. However, I am still not convinced on how that can be achieved. I am not wedded to the notion of an area health board model in the region, and that comment applies generally across the State. That may be some consolation to the people locally. I am concerned that the government comes up with the best model to ensure the appropriate interface between the different health agencies in Central Highlands and across the State in the interests of the range of services and type of care available to the community. Mr Knowles is aware of the review of health services I have initiated. I shall be looking to that review to give me some more specific advice about various structures that can be put in place to cover both the acute medical and psychiatric systems. However, I encourage the people at Lakeside Hospital and the other two institutions mentioned to continue to ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1605 give their priority to improving the quality of care, with particular emphasis on Lakeside Hospital. I assure them that absolutely no decision will be made, either in the short or long term, that does not involve them in the decision-making process. I hope that is sufficient to convince those involved that incumbent decisions are not weighing over them. Mr Skeggs asked me to refer to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services the reorganisation of the State Emergency Service. I shall ensure that that is done. Motion agreed to. House adjourned 11.38 p.m. PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMEN1) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1607 Wednesday, 15 May 1991 The PRESIDENT (Hon. A. J. Hunt) took the chair at 10.33 a.m. and read the prayer. PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Assembly. Read first time on motion of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development). QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE LOY YANG B POWER STATION Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - I ask the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development whether it is a fact that the government has directed that the timetable for completion of unit 2 of Loy Yang B power station be extended because of a shortage of funds; and if so, what will be the cost penalty to the State Electricity Commission as a result of the government directive? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer to the question is no. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs recent press reports concerning the government inquiry into local council restructuring in the Geelong area. Will the Minister advise the House whether she has received any requests for restructuring inquiries from other regions of Victoria; and if so, when does the Minister plan to advise the local municipalities of the date of commencement of any future amalgamation inquiries? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - There are constantly formal and informal requests. What distinguished the Geelong instance was that there were requests from four councils, under seal of council, plus a community petition, which indicated considerable support. As a general reply to the matter raised by Mr Best, when requests come from municipalities they are worked through by the Office of Local Government. If the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1608 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 response is to refer the request to a division of the Local Government Commission for inquiry, it is appropriate I notify the council at the appropriate time of the referral to the commission. Often there is a good deal of work to be done when a request comes in for some kind of adjustment or readjustment of boundaries. There are formal and informal requests coming in at all times from different areas of the State. All of those are being worked through in the proper way. MANUFACTURING COUNCIL OF VICTORIA Hon. JEAN Mc LEAN (Boronia) - Will the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development advise the House of the latest developments relating to the Manufacturing Council of Victoria? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I am pleased to inform the House that the Manufacturing Council of Victoria (MCV) has appointed Mr John Marshall to direct the council secretariat. Mr Marshall was formerly a director and vice-president of manufacturing at the Ford Motor Co. of Aust. Ltd and one of the most respected motor industry figures in this State. One of his roles as director of the MCV is to establish and run the secretariat. Mr Marshall's career at Ford stretched from 1953 to 1989. He was Melbourne production manager, Melbourne manufacturing engineering manager, general operations manager, Australia, and director and vice-president of manufacturing. He brings a great deal of expertise to the Manufacturing Council of Victoria. His appointment was approved by a committee chaired by Graeme Kraehe of Pacific BBA, and included on the committee were Ken Crompton, Bob Herbert, David Edwards, Max Burr and Barry Ferguson. By having a secretariat, the MCV will mirror and complement the Australian Manufacturing Council (AMC). In this way, a closer working relationship is envisaged with the AMC and this meets with the expectations of the manufacturing sector of Victoria having access to the AMC. The Victorian council will act both as a facilitator for investment activities and advocate on State government policy within our department and other departments, and in regard to Federal government policy such as the recent industry statement and subsequent additions to it. I look forward to working closely with John Marshall and other members of the secretariat, both in the prelude to the special Premiers Conference and to make a further impact on the Federal manufacturing policy and the emergence of the State manufacturing policy to ensure that Victoria remains at the forefront in producing investment and high value-added export oriented State manufacturing. It is a great pleasure to announce Mr MarshalI's appointment. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1609 PRIVATE HEALTH INDUSTRY Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - The Minister for Health knows Victoria's private hospitals provide one-third of patient bed days in this State. The Victorian hospital system could not survive without them. In view of the continuing pressure on people with private health insurance with the increase in insurance premiums, what action will the Minister take to encourage Victorians to continue in or to join private health funds? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - The issue of insurance premiums for private health cover is a vexed question. As Mrs Tehan is well aware, it is completely a matter for the Federal government. I have explored the question with officers in the Commonwealth sector and we have considered the merits of pursuing the notion of tax deductibility for private health insurance, a measure that was discarded some time ago. It seems that such a measure could be quite attractive. However, the cost of a tax incentive scheme could well be in the order of $200 million. I have taken the view that, if the Federal government were minded to inject in one form or another an additional $200 million into the health system of this country, it could be far better used by being directly provided to the health services in the States to ensure that the public health system was able to continue to offer the excellent range of health services currently being offered with great difficulty. I am aware of the significant increase announced yesterday by one private health insurer. It is a reflection of the difficulties private health insurers are finding themselves in. I recognise the impost the increase places on those families who choose to retain private health insurance. However, the increases are carefully worked out by insurance companies on the basis of their actuarial predictions. They will be seeking two things:firstly, to ensure that their costs are kept as low as possible, while, secondly, recognising that it is very much in their interests and in the interests of the private health system to maintain the share of private health insurers in Victoria that has remained fairly static over the past five years. ADV ANCED SKILLS TEACHERS Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) - I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training. One of the responsibilities of the soon to be classified ASTl teachers is to supervise student teachers during their times of school placement. In the past, extra payment was made to teachers for this supervision work. Will such a special payment for student teacher supervision continue to be made to ASTl teachers, or is it assumed that the cost will be absorbed in their higher salaries? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The issue has formed part of the negotiations undertaken with the Commonwealth government. I have agreement from the Commonwealth that funds that were made available from teaching colleges for that service will now become part of the payment for the duties of ASTl teachers when they are appointed. The Commonwealth will be providing those funds, so there will not be a situation of double dipping. Teachers will perform those duties as part QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1610 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 of their duties as ASTl teachers and those funds will flow from the Commonwealth and be part of the general payment. WORK-BASED CHILD-CARE Hon. LICIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West) - I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Training. Last year the Ministry of Education and Training signed an award restructuring agreement with the teacher unions that provided for a pilot work-based child-care project. Will the Minister inform the House of any progress on this issue? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I am pleased to inform the House about progress on the matter. The idea of having facilities for child-care in association with education facilities is something most people welcome as a general concept. In following through the undertaking, an opportunity has arisen at Hobson's Bay Secondary College, which was receiving some $3 million of much-needed renovation and upgrading work, including the introduction of a technology centre as a focus. As part of that upgrade it has been possible to negotiate the establishment of a child-care centre on the site. The child-care centre is a joint project between the Ministry of Education and Training and the Office of Preschool and Childcare. It will provide child-care facilities for people who left school ~arly, have children and want to return to schooling but would otherwise find it difficult because of the impediments associated with access to child-care. It is done in conjunction with the Office of Preschool and Childcare, and one-third of the places will be allocated to the general community. It will be run by the Office of Preschool and Childcare but the Ministry of Education and Training is providing the facilities on site. It is particularly notable because it is an area of great need. Hobson's Bay Secondary College is a well located school in the inner city area with good access to transport, and enormous support has been received locally for the concept. I pay credit to the work of the school council, the parents, the unions involved, the local council and, of course, the local member, Mr Bunna Walsh. All of these groups and individuals have been supportive, and I look forward to it being a significant pilot project to point us in the direction of properly integrated child-care facilities in our system. In addition, because of the introduction of a technology centre in the school, and the possibility of a TAPE presence, it may be possible to have a further education TAPE and provision of regular school education, with the ability for people to come back to school through the provision of child-care. I am excited about the project, as is the local community, and I look forward to monitoring the results during the year. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1611 INDUSTRIAL ACTION AT ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - Today the Royal Melbourne Hospital has closed beds because of industrial action affecting supplies of linen from Central Linen Service. The central linen system in Victoria is not efficient, and not infrequently for industrial reasons it holds the public hospital system to ransom. Will the Minister for Health indicate why she will not allow private linen operators in Victoria to tender for public hospital linen, thereby reducing the threat of industrial action and saving hospitals an estimated $30 million a year in costs? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I genuinely thank the honourable member for her question because it allows me to give my views on the bans which have been imposed by the Health and Community Services Staff Association. Approximately 40 managers have the potential for holding the hospital services of this State to ransom most inappropriately because they are not following the processes they should follow. They are well aware of them but they are not currently pursuing them. I am concerned, in particular, about the fact that the union is varying the issues it claims are at the heart of the dispute. I met with the union only the week before last - admittedly about a long-standing wage issue to which Health Department Victoria has formally responded - and apparently we are now in a situation where the union is varying and extending the issue it claims is at the heart of the dispute to cover restructuring and redundancies which would have implications for Central Linen Service. What is even more peculiar is that the claim for redundancy was taken before the Industrial Relations Commission by that union twelve months ago. It was referred to the full bench, but in that twelve-month period the union has sought not to prosecute that claim. The offer, of course, would remain open. On the matter of the impact on hospitals I am most concerned that the Royal Melbourne Hospital is restricting its admissions today. I fear the impact will spread over the next two days and a very critical situation may be developing not just for elective surgery but also for emergency and critical care in hospitals. A meeting is currently under way with the Department of Labour and the case has been listed with the Industrial Relations Commission for urgent hearing. Although I stand ready to meet with the union to discuss its concerns it would not be appropriate to do so while these totally irresponsible bans are in place. Mrs Tehan raises the broader issue of the operations of Central Linen Service. There is no dispute with statements about its poor productivity, which is why a review of that service was put in place some time ago. The review has been finalised and I am close to being able to announce a completely new structure for the provision of linen services for the major metropolitan hospitals in our State. It would also involve extension of services, possibly in country Victoria, which would be welcomed by those provincial towns. As to the use of the private sector, I am happy to QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1612 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 explore its contribution to the provision of linen services in Victorian hospitals and have requested my department to initiate investigations in that area. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF ROADS CORPORATION Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) - I ask the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs what action she will take to ensure that municipalities are not financially disadvantaged by the inability of the Roads Corporation to honour written financial obligations which it entered into with municipalities in July and October last year and which it is now rapidly backing away from. Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - I thank the honourable member for his question which is a detailed matter that was drawn to my attention in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting last night. I characterise it as a serious matter and will be entering discussions with the Minister for Transport. I will be asking officers from the Office of Local Government to do the same with their counterparts in the Ministry of Transport to see what can be done to ensure that local government in a number of areas is not severely disadvantaged. MICRO-ECONOMIC REFORM - HEALTH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA Hon. G. A. SGRO (Melbourne North) - What measure has the Minister for Health achieved to effect micro-economic reform within Health Department Victoria head office? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I thank the honourable member for his question. He used the phrase "micro- economic reform" which is a term that is frequently used. It is absolutely crucial when one talks about this matter that one is talking real savings and not just a thimble and pea trick. It is always useful when talking real savings to make comparisons. The comparison I seek to make is with the New South Wales health department head office which three years ago had a similar staffing level to that of Health Department Victoria. The New South Wales government, as honourable members are well aware, has used a lot of rhetoric and, I fear, may be pursuing this thimble and pea trick in its rhetoric about micro-economic reform. The claims that have been made about effecting efficiencies within the health department in New South Wales include, for example, claims of reductions in the staffing levels centrally. However, an examination of the small print in the annual report of the health department in New South Wales shows that it is breeding like rabbits. The head office staff has grown from 676 to 687. Its regional-- Hon. M. T. Tehan - What is your source? Hon. M. A. L YSTER - I have given the source. You were not listening. Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - On a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has used precise statistics in her answer and I should be glad if she would give the source of those statistics. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1613 Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I gave my source. The PRESIDENT - Order! The Minister has not purported to quote from a document and cannot therefore be asked to produce it. The Minister may answer it in her own way. Hon. M. T. Tehan - Unsupported statistics! Hon. M. A. LYSTER - I am advised that in the New South Wales health department annual report these figures are reported. The health department staffing has grown from 676 to 687. The staffing of the country regional offices has grown from 200 to 234, and the area boards - which I thought the Liberal Party was so enamoured of - have led to an increase in staff from 300 to ten area health boards, each with a staff of between 60 and 80. That is an increase of some 56 per cent -hardly, one would have thought, real micro-economic reform. However, in Victoria we have been achieving real reductions in our staffing levels. There were 50 actual jobs cut last year. Health Department Victoria is progressively devolving operational management activity to managers at the community level both within the health department and, increasingly, in the non-government sector. This includes the integration of psychiatric services with a range of other health agencies and the making of significant delegations to regional managers, which means that decisions are made closer to where the actual services are being delivered. Therefore, we are seeing a real reduction in central office staffing. Health Department Victoria now has a total of 699 office staff. That comprises 146 staff in regional administration; 108 in regulation and inspection services; and 445 in the central office. That is a total of 699, which is rather a significant difference from that which, on the rough counts of the New South Wales health department, would be closer to 1200. 33 SOUTH WHARF DEVELOPMENT Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - I address my question to the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development in his capacity as Minister responsible for Ports. I refer to the development of the new wharf at 33 South Wharf and the additional costs incurred in repairing the 9O-metre section of sheet pile wall which failed just recently. I ask the Minister to explain how such a design fault remained undetected until after construction, considering that the Port of Melbourne Authority has its own engineering design section. Further, what action has been taken to recover the cost of approximately $600 000 that has been incurred through this fault? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) -It is always good to have Mr Smith pushing the case on behalf of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia because, in fact, as with all the issues he has been raising lately, he is talking about jobs contracted out for the first time as opposed to day labour work. It is up to the Port of Melbourne Authority to ensure that the new contractors adhere to the specifications of the contracted work, that the work is done in accordance with the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1614 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 contract on time and at cost, and better than the traditional day labour methods that have been used in the past. One must say that some of the work done initially by the contracted work forces such as that mentioned by Mr Smith has not completely met expectations, but further work will be done to ensure that that is the case. YOUTH POLICY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Hon. C. J. KENNEDY (Waverley) - I ask the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs to outline her plans for the third term of the Youth Policy Development Council. Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - As some honourable members at least will be aware, the Youth Policy Development Council (yPDC) was established under the Youth Affairs Act 1986 to provide advice to the Minister responsible for youth affairs about the development of youth policy. The term of the second YPDC expired at the end of March, and I express appreciation to Mr Bill Couche from the Mission to Streets and Lanes who chaired the YPDC. I would anticipate some change of direction for the third YPDC, although I have asked Mr Couche to continue with his chairing of that council because I believe he has done an excellent job. The government has had a strong belief in the idea of young people participating in the development of policies that concern them. The first and second YPDCs were involved in a lot of policy consultation but I am keen to see a majority of young people on this particular policy development council. I should like to see balanced representation - that is, gender representation and ethnic representation - and we will be advertising for membership of this council in daily newspapers, the regional press and journals that are relevant to young people. I expect to be able to announce the membership of the third YPDC very early in July, and possibly a little earlier than that. I certainly express appreciation for the work done by the YPDC, but I point out that there should be some difference in the third council, with particular emphasis on the work done and the contribution made by young people themselves. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - With the advantage of having heard yesterday of the Minister for Health's failure to observe the law relating to Parliament, I direct the attention of the Minister for Education and Training to his obligation under section 40 of the Parliamentary Committees Act to report to Parliament within six months of the making of a recommendation by a Parliamentary committee. In this instance I refer to the tabling in this House last November of the report of the Economic and Budget Review Committee containing recommendations with respect to the Office of Schools Administration, among other aspects of the education department. I ask why the Minister has so far failed to tell Parliament about the action proposed to be taken by the government with respect to the recommendations of the committee. PAPER Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1615 Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I shall take on notice the details of the question and report accordingly. INADEQUATE REBLOCKING WORK Hon. lOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West) - I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs whether he is aware of problems with people doing shoddy reblocking work on houses in the western suburbs without being approved builders registered with the Housing Guarantee Fund. It is especially outrageous, considering that many of the victims are on low incomes and are elderly. What action is the Ministry of Consumer Affairs taking to protect home owners from being ripped off by these so-called tradesmen? Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - I am aware of some companies in the area that are providing substandard work and the Ministry is investigating the complaints with a view to prosecution. One company in particular, Westgate Reblocking, has done an extremely poor job for a retired 74-year-old pensioner living in Footscray. It is of great concern to me that some tradespeople will go to any lengths to dodge the law. The House Contracts Guarantee Act provides protection for home buyers or owners if they hire builders to do work worth more than $3000. In the case to which I have referred the elderly woman accepted a written quote of $3500 from Westgate Reblocking. However, on the permit application to the Footscray City Council the value of the work was stated as $2800. Obviously that process was specifically designed to avoid the need to register the job with the Housing Guarantee Fund. The completed work was so uneven that daylight was showing between the floor of the bathroom and the outside wall. Despite repeated requests for the problem to be rectified the company has refused to do anything. That is by no means an isolated incident. At a house in Carnegie the reblocker took some money up front to do a job but performed hardly any work at all. In fact the house is still standing on jacks and the work is still to be completed. The government has already tightened the legislation to make it illegal to provide two separate contracts each under $3000 for the one job. Too many tradespeople were avoiding the Housing Guarantee Fund obligations by using that ploy. Perhaps in the future local councils should assist by providing home owners with copies of the written quotes signed by the builders before the commencement of work. PAPER Laid on table by Clerk: Alpine Resorts Commission - Report and financial statements for the year 1989-90. Ordered that report tabled by Clerk be considered next day on motion of Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra). SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 1616 COUNCIL Wedne~ay, 15 May 1991 SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill being passed through all stages on Wednesday, 15 May 1991. This is a procedural motion to ensure that there can be full debate on the Bill today, which is listed on the Notice Paper, General Business, Notices of Motion, No. 12 standing in my name. Motion agreed to. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL Introduction and first reading Hon M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) introduced a Bill to amend the Constitution Act 1975. Read first time. Second reading Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The people of Victoria want a State election and this Bill provides a lawful mechanism to ensure that there can be a State election. Any impediment that currently exists to the holding of an election in Victoria in the near future or at any time will be removed if the Legislative Assembly passes this Bill. The public wants to be able to vote, to be able to pass judgment on the government, but the government is hiding from public opinion and is trying to deny the public's right to be able to vote on whether the government should last another day. The Kirner government has no mandate, no popular support and no credibility, and while it exists Victoria will have no hope. The aim of the Bill is to provide a path to ensure that Joan Kirner can do the right thing and call an election. The Bill is written in accordance with the terms of the Constitution Act to ensure that the Premier of the day has the right to go to the Governor and seek an election. It removes any impediment this discredited government may argue is in the way of calling an election. In clear and unequivocal terms it provides that an election can be called. When a government like this one, which is so lacking in the vision necessary to be able to deal with Victoria's problems, which is so uniquely responsible for Victoria's problems and which has been so arrogant in ignoring the popular will, is presented with this Bill it CONSTITl.JTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1617 has the opportunity to at last present itself in an honourable fashion. The Bill provides the government with a chance to vote in favour of the right to have an election. We seek from the government today, when the Bill has passed this House and goes to the Legislative Assembly, a commitment that an election will be called and that the Bill will be used as a vehicle for achieving it. In the history of Victoria there has never been a government that will be so remembered for its mismanagement, its economic failures and its deceit. It is a government that through its every action has destroyed the economic credibility of the State and its financial foundations. It is a government that must be called to account. Everywhere that members of Parliament and community leaders travel today time and again they hear citizens and community groups say that this government has to go and that they want to be able to vote for a change of government. There has never been such an overwhelming response from the people of Victoria because of the rejection of what the Labor Party stands for. Time and again we hear the views of traditional Labor voters who are saying that the Labor Party has betrayed their interests, that it sold the State Bank and did not even get a profit for it because it had to payoff the losses incurred by Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. It is a discredited Labor Party. Those voters are the people who feel the greatest sense of anger about a government that they put in power, a government they entrusted to work for traditional Labor values. Labor supporters have been betrayed but they are not the only ones. People in small businesses and families whose breadwinners have lost jobs are among the people who are suffering the financial consequences of the mismanagement of John Cain, Joan Kirner, Rob Jolly, Tom Roper, Robert Fordham, Jim Kennan, Evan Walker, David White - the litany goes on! What a government it has been! Since 1988 this government has had 2 Premiers, 3 Deputy Premiers, 3 health Ministers, 5 ethnic affairs Ministers, 3 planning Ministers, 4 agriculture Ministers, 5 arts Ministers - and the list goes on. In barely 24 months Victorians saw a turnover of every senior position in the government including the Leader of the Government in this place, who quit simply so he could end the haemorrhaging, as he saw it, and so that he did not have to be a continuing part of the distrust. Where is he today? He is overseas because he is happy to be away from it. That process of having 2 Premiers and 3 Deputy Premiers, with Ministers lasting not even a year in their portfolios before they are dumped because of poor performance, is another classic symbol of a government in decay. What are the people saying? We are not in Parliament to represent our interests but to represent the interests of the public. We must listen to what they are saying and we have to respond to their underlying concerns. This private member's Bill provides the mechanism for their concerns to be listened to. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSE¥BLy) BILL 1618 COUNCIL We We challenge the Labor Party to pass legislation that allows for an eJbction to be held and therefore meets the demands of the Victorian public. If the gove~ent again betrays the public interest by voting against this Bill it will prove that it is put~g its arrogance ahead of the needs of ordinary Victorians. It will prove that it is sUnply clinging to power for personal benefit rather than a concern about the future of the State. The mismanagement, the failure and the deceit of the government are its hallmarks; they are the reason we need an election as soon as possible. I turn to the Bill in detail. It is by any measure a short and concise statement of rights: that is, it gives the power to the Premier to advise the Governor to call an election. It does that within the terms of the Constitution. Hon. B. W. Mier - Both Houses? Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Yes, both Houses. You should read the Constitution because then you would not need to ask that question, Mr Mier. The Constitution says that when the Lower House is dissolved, part of the Upper House is automatically dissolved. There is no need to refer in this amendment to the Upper House; it automatically provides for it. This Bill will provide the ability for the Premier, Ms Kirner, to advise the Governor to call an election. There would be a collective sigh of relief if that occurred. Honourable Members - Hear, hear! Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Victorians want to be able to vote; they want to be able to pass judgment. Hon. B. W. Mier - You are desperate. Hon. Robert Lawson - Desperate to help Victoria. Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Mr Theophanous says we are losing the game. He used to live in an ivory tower, now he is living in cloud cuckoo land! If Mr Theophanous seriously suggests that his coterie of friends is advising him that we are losing the game, Mr Theophanous is showing he has a paucity of contacts and cannot mix with the people the Labor Party was supposed to mix with. Get in and talk to the ordinary Victorians, Mr Theophanous, and you will find they are saying, "Let us have an election and let us vote". Hon. Licia Kokocinski interjected. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Ms Kokocinski, who is interjecting, is in the safe position of not being up for re-election this time round. Hon. Licia Kokocinski - You are pulling gimmicks. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - You will be out at the election after this one. The only thing that saves Ms Kokocinski is that she is lucky enough to have an eight-year term because otherwise her career would be finished. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1619 Victorians want to vote at an election. All the Bill does is give the Premier the right to go to the Governor. It does not direct the Governor to take any action. It does not direct the Premier to take any action. It does not direct the Labor Party to take any action. It allows the Labor Party to do the right thing. It gives the government the choice and it cannot, therefore, fall back on the argument that says, "We cannot address this election issue because there are impediments in our way". The Bill removes those impediments. The government is so discredited that the public is saying again and again, "We want an election and the government should face up to the public will". The community knows the effect on the economy of combined Labor governments and knows that Victoria has been singled out as the State leading the recession and having a major impact on the depression. There is a need for a circuit-breaker. A State election will provide not only a change of government but also the psychological circuit-breaker that is needed to revive the economy. The business community, in particular, is looking to the time when it can draw the line and say: "All of that mismanagement is behind us, the State of Victoria can get going again". That cannot occur under the current Labor government because the mistrust and suspicion will continue for as long as the government holds on to power. An election will provide a circuit-breaker and, psychologically, is vitally needed. It will hopefully mean that Victoria will not have to go through the experience of the further downgrading of its credit ratings by business analysts as has been the experience of recent months. The downgrading of our credit ratings is tragic for the State and the economy and, most importantly, tragic for the future operation of the economy. It does not serve the purpose of the opposition to have further downgradings.1t does not suit the opposition to have a government in that environment, but the opposition knows the downturn and adverse reaction will continue for as long as the Kirner government continues, and that is why it is providing this reasonable mechanism: the opposition it believes the Premier should have the right to call an election immediately and this Bill will give her that right. I stress that the Bill does not direct that there be an election or direct the Premier to take action forthwith, and it certainly does not direct the Governor. It gives the government the freedom of choice to call an election and it means that Joan Kirner and her cronies cannot retreat behind the argument that it is impossible to call an election. It will be possible if the 46 men and women of the Labor party in the Legislative Assembly do the right thing and allow the Bill to pass - and the opposition challenges them to do exactly that. Hon. Licia Kokocinski - You do the right thing and let the SIO be sold! Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - The opposition is particularly concerned about the financial credibility of Victoria and that is what motivates us. The opposition wants to restore financial credibility and to improve the solvency of the State. That is the challenge. The opposition is motivated by one outcome: to restore employment in Victoria. Honourable members interjecting. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL 1620 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 The PRESIDENT - Order! I have repeatedly made it clear that although all interjections are technically out of order, reasonable and apposite interjections will be permitted. What cannot be permitted is a constant barrage of interjections that drowns out the speaker and may be designed to throw the speaker off track. Every person in this House is entitled to free speech. Free speech means speaking when one is called upon without any undue interruption. Those who have different views from the person currently having the eye of the Chair will have the opportunity of putting those views later. Having regard to the serious nature of the subject matter I ask that speakers be allowed to be heard without undue interruption. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Any government should be motivated to ensure the creation of employment in the State, to ensure that the breadwinners of families are able to get employment, to ensure there is job choice for many and particularly for young people leaving school. However, in this State as a result of mismanagement by the Kirner and Cain governments and because of the failure of ALP economic policies, we are in a deep malaise and we are driven to ensure that Victoria can get out of that malaise. If the latest unemployment statistics released only recently do not shock the Labor Party into reality, nothing will. If that does not make the government address its own organisational roots, nothing will. We should be concerned about unemployment because the unemployment rate over the past year is distressing. Unemployment in numerical terms, on a seasonally adjusted basis, between April 1990 and April 1991 rose by 117.7 per cent in Victoria, whereas for the rest of Australia the unemployment figure rose by 46.5 per cent. The rate of unemployment in this State has risen by more than double that of other States. What is so special about Victoria? What is special is the paralysis the Labor government is forcing on the economy and we are paying for it. The breadwinners of families and young people trying to get their first jobs are paying the price and that is one of the reasons why we have moved this motion. We are disgusted by the price that ordinary citizens are having to pay for the Kimer government's failures. The unemployment rate in Victoria, seasonally adjusted, for April 1990 to April 1991 was 10.5 per cent in Victoria. Under the Greiner government in New South Wales the unemployment rate was only 8.6 per cent. Once again Victoria distinguishes itself as being worse than other States and specifically worse than New South Wales. Mr Theophanous used to preach to us from his media press releases that Victoria had the best employment rate in Australia. Victoria is now the worst and the employment position must be improved. The final economic statistic that must drive anyone to an inevitable conclusion about the malaise we are in is the consumer price index for capital cities. From December 1989 to December 1990 the CPI in Melbourne increased by 7.4 per cent and in the rest of Australia by 6.9 per cent. Why are we the worst again? Why are we worse off than the other States? It is because of the malaise in the State caused by the Labor Party. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1621 Economic matters which have an impact upon individuals and families are clearly a major reason for the need for an election; but this Bill is not about forcing an election, it is about letting the government choose an election. It is giving the government the capacity to do so and it is clearly what the people want. Dozens of opinion polls have been conducted over the past few months. I do not seek to quote any of them on what the outcome of an election would be because I have no doubt that the Labor Party would be chucked out. However, people were asked in opinion polls and opinion surveys whether they wanted an election. In the Herald-Sun of 4 February 1991 it is reported that eight out of ten people who contacted the newspaper said they wanted a poll. About 83 per cent of the callers said there needs to be a State election. There is no doubt that that is the general mood of the electorate. Why are we not having an election? Because Australian Labor Party (ALP) members of Parliament are simply protecting their own vested interests. They are not looking to the broader interests of the community. They have betrayed Victorians and are now turning their backs on them. What mandate can the government claim? Was the government recently elected? Was Joan Kirner elected as Premier? Does she have a mandate? Of course not: Joan Kirner has no personal mandate. At the last election how did most Victorians vote? I do not deny the fact the ALP won the majority of seats in the Lower House but I am interested in analysing the number of votes cast for members in both Houses, both separately and together. In the Legislative Assembly the ALP won 46.55 per cent of the votes; the coalition received 48.27 per cent. In the Legislative Council the ALP won 48.13 per cent of the vote; the coalition received 50.98 per cent. The popular will of the people is quite clear. But most importantly the will of the public - Hon. D. R. White - That's last week's press release! Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Statistics do not change. Most importantly, over the past six to eight weeks the public has expressed an opinion. The opposition seeks to achieve a constitutional amendment that provides rights. The Bill before the House outlines in simple terms what those rights will be, and there will be a right resting in the hands of the Premier. The opposition has made it clear that a straightforward mechanism needs to be provided, a mechanism which has no complications and which leaves all of the cards in the Premier's hands. No-one is denying the Premier that right. The opposition wants to put them in the Premier's hands because it knows Joan Kirner is under intense personal pressure to call an election and to recognise the public will. The opposition knows Victorians are seeking an election so that this State can get out of its current economic malaise. In the absence of such a right there will be no change in the outcome. In conclusion, there are three key reasons why this Bill should be passed today and why the Legislative Assembly should face up to reality and also pass the legislation. Firstly, there can be no change in the psychological recession until there is a change of CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1622 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 government. Secondly, the government is responsible for gross mismanagement and gross deception about its performance and should pay the price. The third, but most important, reason is that it is the opposition's duty in the Upper House to provide a mechanism so the Lower House can call out the entire Parliament for an election. In the absence of that the opposition would be irresponsible. If it did not introduce this Bill the opposition would be denying the fact that the Constitution is a living document and that this House should have the opportunity of debating this Bill today. The opposition has said that it would be happy to entrench certain provisions in the Constitution and that it would be happy to have referendums on constitutional operations. Those ideas were rejected by the ALP. They were not accepted by the government. The motion before the House today is a private member's Bill which fits within the ambit and the exact wording of the Constitution and which provides a mechanism which it is envisaged will enable the Premier to call an election. Let us meet the public need. Let us meet the economic need of the people by calling the election. Victorians want to ensure that we can achieve that outcome. If that outcome is not achieved the final point we must consider is where do we go? That must be the final point we consider. Can we simply sit by and allow the malaise to continue? Can we sit by and watch the government change Premiers, Deputy Premiers, Ministers and departmental heads and pretend that something will be achieved? It will not be achieved because the spirit of Rob Jolly and John Cain lives on! It will not be achieved because Joan Kirner does not have the capacity to overcome the problems caused by the current disunity in the Labor Party. She cannot provide solid leadership because the Labor Party is demonstrably incapable of leading Victoria and of following the public will. If the Labor Party believes it has popular support in the community the challenge is for it to call an election at any time, but it will not do so. Today's private member's Bill is an opportunity to provide Joan Kirner with the capacity to do the right thing. If she fails to do the right thing she effectively will be sending a message to the electorate that arrogance is more important than responsibility. If that is the outcome I will not be surprised by the community's response. Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) - I support the Bill and commend the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. He set out in clear and concise terms why the Bill has been introduced today and the effect it will have. I do not take amendments to the Constitution lightly and I believe my record in Parliament over the years demonstrates that. The Constitution of this State belongs to the people; it is their safeguard. But it should also be noted that unlike the Federal Constitution, which is capable of amendment only by referendum, the Victorian Constitution can be amended by Parliament, albeit by passage by an absolute majority. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1623 Anyone who refers back to 1984 when the Constitution was last amended in this State and to the discussions and debate that preceded it will recognise the truth of what I am saying about my not taking constitutional amendments lightly. The proposed amendment does not alter some longstanding provision in the Constitution. It does not amend a provision that has been part of the Constitution for years. The Bill proposes to change a provision that was inserted in the Constitution as recently as 1984. Hon. B. W. Mier - Which you supported very strongly, as did Mr Birrell! Hon. W. R. BAXTER - I ruave already said the change to the Constitution in 1984 was by agreement after much disc'Ussion. Despite the fact that at one stage the Labor government was attempting to force the provision through at 4 o'clock in the morning - it was attempting to put it through Parliament in the death hours of a sitting - it was inserted in 1984 as part of a package of changes to the Constitution. The only reason this provision was accepted by the government was because it was part of a package. It is perhaps ironic that the provision was inserted in 1984 because people believed the prospect of serving four-year terms might not be adhered to and that there would be too many elections. Honourable members will recall the experience at that time in the Federal arena where Prime Ministers had been rushing off to the electors prematurely at their whim and at a time that suited them. It was decided that some impediment should be placed in the Victorian Constitution that would stop the opportunistic holding of elections by a government. Hon. T. C. Theophanous - Like you are doing now! Hon. W. R. BAXTER - No. If Mr Theophanous is patient he will see the merit of my argument. The wheel has now turned full circle. Instead of the community expressing concern about too many elections as a result of governments rushing off to the people, it is concerned that the Victorian Labor government is intent on clinging to power and using as an excuse a provision in the Constitution that provides for a minimum three-year term. In 1984 no-one could have foreseen the situation that developed over the next few years. No-one could have believed that we would have in office a discredited government that was responsible for all the disasters Mr Birrell has outlined to the House today and for a few more that I will mention. That such a government could be in charge of and responsible for the State of Victoria's declining to the extent it has yet still use as an excuse for not going to the election a constitutional provision that prevents it from doing so, notwithstanding other provisions in the Constitution that would allow the government to have an election if it wished, speaks for itself: the government has sought refuge from the demands of the electorate by saying that an election is not possible because of a provision of the Constitution. The amendment would do nothing more than allow the government to respond to the demands of the Victorian people for an election, whether such demands are evident in CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1624 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 opinion polls, street marches, the stream of letters sent to members or from what one is told wherever one goes - with the possible exception of Mr Theophanous! Constantly we hear demands from the people for an opportunity to express their opinion of the government and to have a fresh start. Although, oddly enough, those people do not talk to Mr Theophanous, they talk to every other honourable member, and they certainly talk to me in large numbers. Yet it is more than talk; it is an absolute demand for action. There is a crisis of confidence in the Victorian community. Mr Birrell has described it as a psychological crisis, but it is also an economic crisis of a dimension we have never seen before in either this State or this nation. The crisis is due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is that the people of Victoria believe they were defrauded at the 1988 State election because of the cover-ups involving, in particular, the failure of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and the delayed disclosure of the loss of $111 million, which was scandalous. Little did we know what was around the corner, that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money would be squandered by this government through every avenue it could find. The losses incurred by Tricontinental Corporation Ltd made the VEDC loss seem like petty cash. It needs to be emphasised yet again that at the 1988 election more people voted for the Liberal and National parties than government. If anyone had suggested in 1984 that by 1991 Victoria would have lost one of the jewels in its crown, our own State Bank, he or she would have been laughed out of the place. Nevertheless last year the government lost us our State Bank, and that more than anything else has drained the confidence of the people of Victoria. The loss of the bank will haunt the Labor Party for generations to come, because it is the cause of the people of Victoria feeling betrayed and defrauded. Yesterday we heard of yet another downgrading by Moody's Investors Service of the government's credit rating - not without warning, because the last time the government's credit rating was downgraded Moody's warned it that a further downgrading was likely unless certain issues were addressed. But the government took no action and Victoria slid further down the slippery slope of economic recession. The downturn in investment in Victoria has been catastrophic. In the last quarter for which we have figures investment in the State declined by 22 per cent, and the figures for the next quarter will be worse because of the continued flight of capital from Victoria. Investors no longer have any confidence in Victoria. They are investing interstate or overseas and will not invest in Victoria until the crisis of confidence facing this State is reversed, which can happen only if an election is called. Worst of all is the parlous unemployment figures, which were highlighted this morning by Mr Birrell. Rural unemployment is running at its highest level, having reached 27 per cent in some areas. Youth unemployment is running at between 65 and 70 per cent -- CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1625 Hon. P. R. Hall- It's 75 per cent in the Latrobe Valley. Hon. W. R. BAXTER - Mr Hall tells me youth unemployment is running at 75 per cent in his area, which is a tragedy of the highest proportions. I have seen many downturns in rural Australia. Hon. B. E. Davidson interjected. Hon. W. R. BAXTER -It's all very well for Mr Davidson to respond sarcastically. That is typical of the government's attitude towards country people - but it is now the way in which it treats all of the people of Victoria. The government could not care less. Country people made it through the wheat quota crisis of 1967 and the beef crisis of 1974, and they fought hard to survive the 1982 drought. During those times country people had faith in their ability to hang in, press on and work towards a better day. But I do not find any evidence these days of that attitude in country people, because they are shell-shocked. They seem to have lost all incentive, and blame for that must be laid at the feet of the government. Rural people continually tell me that they see little chance of the State pulling out of its economic mire while this government remains in office. The opposition cannot allow that attitude to continue, because Victoria will never recover while it does. I suspect that in their responses members opposite will claim that the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill is an attempt by the Legislative Council to tamper with the Constitution, a claim that I utterly reject. Hon. B. W. Mier interjected. Hon. W. R. BAXTER - The amending provision concerns only this Parliament, but it applies to the Legislative Council as well as to the Legislative Assembly, despite what is said in ignorance by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who does not know anything at all about the provisions of the Constitution and who immediately took the view, when the Bill was introduced, that somehow it was an attempt by the Council to send the Assembly to the people without having to go to them itself. The Bill does nothing of the sort. For a start, the Bill will not force the Assembly to the people unless the government makes the decision; but it enables the government to make such a decision at any time. Secondly, if such a decision is made the half of the Legislative Council that is next due for election will go to the people along with the members of the Legislative Assembly. One should have thought that even if members on the government back bench were ignorant of the provisions of our Constitution at least the frontbench would have known about them. The Bill is nothing more or less than a response by the opposition to the demands of the people. It is about time the government acknowledged those demands and responded to them rather than seeking refuge in certain provisions of the Constitution. Certainly the government cannot continue to hide behind what it claims are constitutional impediments to the calling of an election. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1626 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 This State cannot afford to wait until the present provisions of the Constitution can be brought into play to enable the calling of an election. I admit the vital legislation mechanism is available, but it requires a minimum of four months' delay before it comes into effect - and Victoria cannot afford such a delay, because the people will not wait that long. The amendment to the Constitution will enable the government to respond to the wishes of the people. It is not an attempt to take the agenda of government out of the hands of this government. It is not an attempt to force an election, which I am sure will be the claim of government speakers. The amending provision will insert a mechanism in the Constitution that the government can act on if it wishes. The mere passage of the Bill will not force an election - and that must be understood. Interjections made by membe~s opposite no longer in the Chamber gave the impression that the passage of the Bill would force an election. I repeat: it would do nothing of the sort. Rather it would increase the options available to the government to do the right thing. The Constitution was changed in 1984 to stop the calling of opportunistic elections. That provision was not inserted to advantage oppositions in any respect; rather, it was inserted to disadvantage governments to prevent them calling elections at times they believed to be propitious. Why would any government object to taking out of the Constitution a provision that has hamstrung it? The Bill should be seen as being of benefit to the government, because it would increase its options. It would give the opposition not one whit more authority or power to force an election. It would simply increases the options open to the government. How could any government member oppose that proposal? It is not logical for government members to oppose that sort of proposal. Honourable members interjecting. The PRESIDENT - Order! There is continuous commentary going on from the sidelines. It is a commentary that does not consist of apposite interjections and I ask that it cease. Hon. W. R. BAXTER - In conclusion, there are many members of the government, particularly on the back bench, who want an election because they are becoming tired of being treated as parasites in their own communities. The Bill enables an election to be called at a suitable time without involving the Governor in any more than his constitutional duties. It removes any impediment to an election. It removes from the community the rapidly growing feeling that the government is clinging to office because of the selfishness of a small group of government members. The State cannot afford to continue to drift the way it has during the past six months. We cannot afford to have the hiatus continue until an election is called in the normal course CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1627 of events, whenever that might be, because unemployment is growing at such a rapid rate and investment is rapidly declining. Our credit rating and our stocks are being downgraded regularly and if we want to salvage anything for the future every opportunity must be given to the people and the Bill provides that opportunity. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - This private member's Bill is a major piece of legislation which the government strongly opposes. If one were flippant - and the opposition has been flippant - one could reach the view that it is approaching three-quarter time in a football match and because the opposition is in front it wants the timekeeper to ring the bell because it does not have the guts to go into the last quarter with Jeff Kennett as its the Leader. I shall deal firstly with the constitutional change in two parts. In 1984 Jeff Kennett was at pains to inform Parliament that the legislation the opposition proposed to amend was the result of tripartite input. On 3 May 1984 he was reported at page 4348 of Hansard as having said: The Bill .. .is the property of Parliament consisting of three constituted bodies, coming together with goodwill over many months and years to arrive at that position. That was at the time when we had the last major constitutional change. Mr Kennett continues: I have been in favour of extending the terms of Parliament and I hold the view that terms of five years are better than the terms of four years because of the ability it gives governments of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, to make changes and see those changes come to fruition from year to year. On page 4350 he is reported in Hansard as having said: The proposed legislation will lead to better management of government. It will lead to the government of the day, regardless of its political colour, having the opportunity of making the hard decisions that are necessary from time to time to allow the government to introduce its policies in line with its philosophies and to concentrate on the management and execution of those policies before being confronted with another election. On page 4351 Jeff Kennett continues: This is not a measure that should be available for parties to politically point-score. Although the public may not agree, this Bill proves that political parties have the maturity and foresight to work together in the common interest of not only Parliament but also the community. Whereas by way of contrast today we see a private member's Bill being introduced without consultation and without tripartite agreement tampering with the Constitution in a way that the opposition did not contemplate or have in mind in 1984. Mr Storey, as much as anyone else, was responsible. Mr Kennett gave him credit in 1984 for having been a party to the introduction of the concept of fixed terms and I put it to the House that there is no case for changing that proposal today. What the community wants to know is: why does Jeff Kennett want an early election? One of the reasons he wants an early election is so that he does not have to produce policies. He will not say what he intends to do in the first 100 days let alone the first year CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1628 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 or the first three years. There is another reason why he wants an early election: he has some mates that he wants to protect and the fortunes of those mates will become much clearer during the course of the 1991 calender year. The three mates Jeff Kennett wants to protect are Bill Farrow, Michael Kroger and Graham Samuel. One is the State President of the Liberal Party and one is the Treasurer. In 1991 it will be established from other inquiries -- Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) -On a point of order, the Leader of the Government has introduced material dealing with people who have nothing to do with the subject of the Bill. The Minister is clearly embarking upon a device to divert attention from what the Bill is about and his remarks are irrelevant and should be ruled out of order. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - On the point of order, it is clear that this is a major piece of legislation because it seeks to bring about constitutional change to bring on an early election. In so doing the opposition has clearly canvassed the reasons why it believes an early election should be held and I am foreshadowing and leading argument as to why the opposition urgently wants an election because of political embarrassment to the three gentlemen I mentioned. No Parliament can tamper with the Constitution lightly and if there are reasons known to the government that have been brought to its attention by constituents who have made representations about the way Jeff Kennett has called for an early election Parliament should hear those reasons. They should be put on the record. It is of the utmost importance that Parliament should be sacrosanct and on an important issue such as constitutional change every opportunity should be provided to canvass as widely as possible the reasons why this inappropriate piece of legislation has been introduced. The PRESIDENT - Order! On the point of order, on any Bill the discussion is not only about the subject matter of the Bill but also the problems it is designed to deal with and the reasons why the particular means have been chosen. That will include statements of their reasons, in some detail, by the proponents, which may depart from the subject matter. Conversely, if it is a government Bill the opposition - or if it is an opposition Bill, the government - is able not only to deal with the subject matter but also to challenge the reasons given and to show that the reasons are somewhat different. That is what the Minister appears to be attempting to do at this stage and I do not at this stage uphold the point of order. However, if Mr White goes further and simply uses the Bill as a means to deal with a quite independent matter and to attack people outside Parliament in a way that is irrelevant to the Bill, of course that would be out of order. At this stage Mr White is not out of order and I rule that what he has said to date is apposite to the Bill. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1629 Hon. D. R. WHITE - Mr President, I thank you for your ruling. What is most apposite is the fact that, if the proposed legislation were passed and acted on, an election would be conducted earlier than otherwise would normally be the case. During the period between the conduct of the election that the opposition is seeking and the conduct of an election that would occur in the normal course, certain events will unfold that relate to the last quarter of a football match. Quite clearly during 1991 it will be established who was responsible for the problems surrounding the Pyramid Building Society. Clearly the two blokes most at risk are Bill Farrow - a one-time member of the Liberal Party and close friend of Jeff Kennett - and David Clarke, the bloke who sold Bridgewater Park at a heavily discounted price at a mortgagee's repossession auction to AIan Brown. That auction occurred in 1988, and the property was sold well below the market price -- Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - Mr President, on a point of order, the Leader of the House is now embarking on a matter that normally would be raised by substantive motion, that is, an attack on people who unfortunately - because of the way the Leader of the House has conducted himself - cannot defend themselves in this House. I ask you to rule not only that if the Leader of the Government is to continue down that path he is not addressing himself to the issue but also that he should be raising the matter by substantive motion which the coalition would be happy to entertain at that time. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - Mr President, on the point of order, again I make it clear that there can be no more important issue before a House of this Parliament than an issue that would terminate the life of this particular session of Parliament and precipitate an election which would prevent the occurrence of precisely what Mr Birrell is saying might otherwise occur: it would prevent debate on the matters I am pursuing here because it would not be possible for these issues to be debated. I repeat: this is the most appropriate stage at which to raise these issues because honourable members are in a circumstance where the opposition is trying to precipitate an election. I am indicating clearly the absolute and clear reasons why the Leader of the Opposition in another place is not prepared to indicate to the community the events which will unfold during 1991 and which he is seeking not to have raised before the next election. Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) - Mr President, further on the point of order, the Leader of the Government has justified his response to my Leader's point of order by saying that the Bill will preclude the opportunity of the government raising by substantive motion the issues Mr White is now about to address. That is a complete misunderstanding and misstatement of what the Bill does because the Bill does not call an election; it does not force an election; it provides an opportunity for an election to be held and quite clearly leaves it entirely in the hands of the government as to whether an election is called. Mr Birrell stated that in his speech in support of the Bill. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1630 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 The argument put by the Minister against the point of order is based on a complete misunderstanding of the Bill. I invite you to rule against the point of order. Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU (Doutta Galla) - Mr President, on the point of order, your own ruling clearly allows the Leader of the Government to proceed along the lines he was following. Mr Birrell interrupted again on the same point on which you had ruled. The entire debate seems to be around trying to change the rules. Now Mr Storey and Mr Birrell seek to change the rules appertaining to your ruling. The Leader of the Government is staying strictly within your ruling. Hon. M. A. Birrell-The ruling said "at this stage". Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU - I understand the invitation given to you to take up the issue, but not within 90 seconds. Mr President, it is appropriate that a fair and proper debate proceeds. It is not fair or proper for the opposition to constantly interrupt on the same point. Hon. M. A. Birrell - It is a separate point! Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU - It is not a separate point because the President had already ruled on it. It is just like the Bill: you seek to change the rules! Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - Mr President, further on the point of order, in response to Mr Storey, it is quite clear that Mr Storey is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand he wants the proposed legislation passed by this House today and passed through the Assembly today, and he wants the Premier to act on it, which means -- Hon. Haddon Storey - It is for the Premier to decide; that was the very point I made. Hon. D. R. WHITE - You want an election as soon as possible! Hon. M. A. Birrell - But she chooses the timing. Hon. D. R. WHITE - The discretion to choose to call an election is with the Premier now, without the Bill being passed. Hon. M. A. Birrell- No, it is not; you don't understand the Constitution. Hon. D. R. WHITE - In the normal course of events, the Premier of the day will call an election any time from October this year. Hon. M. A. Birrell- But not now. Hon. D. R. WHITE - You are seeking to change the rules and to inhibit debate on the issues I want to raise, going to the importance of the reasons why an election should not be conducted now. The PRESIDENT - Order! There are three separate issues before me as a result of this discussion on the point of order; I shall deal with them sequentially. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1631 Mr Storey has raised the issue that the effect of the Bill has been misrepresented and says that it enables the government of the day to recommend an election to the Governor. That is clearly the effect of the Bill and I uphold what Mr Storey has said. The second issue relates to persons outside the Parliament and to the use of Parliament to defame those persons. I have already dealt with that issue in my previous ruling but I expand upon it further. If it is directly relevant to the Bill, no-one can stop a member of Parliament using this place to attack someone outside the Parliament. That may be unfortunate but it is part of the absolute privilege of Parliament. However, it must be directly relevant to the Bill, to the reasons for the Bill or the subject matter of it. One cannot embark on an extraneous attack that has no relevance to the Bill and that should be supported only by a substantive motion. That would not be permitted. Now there is a third issue - that is, attacks upon members of Parliament. Attacks upon members of Parliament, whether of this House or of the other House, can be mounted only by way of substantive motion; they cannot be brought by way of amendment to a motion. On the one occasion when that was permitted by way of amendment, it was contrary to the long-established rulings in May and throughout the Westminster system. There is very good reason for that. Any member who wishes to attack another should firstly bring it to his attention and secondly give notice in the precise motion. Mr White has not so far breached that rule. He has mentioned that Mr Brown purchased a property at a mortgagee's sale. That casts no imputation whatever against the former Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the House desires to go further and casts imputations, he can do so only pursuant to a substantive motion. I trust I have made the position clear. At this point the Leader of the Government is within the rules. I will endeavour to see that the rules are observed throughout this difficult debate. Hon. D. R. WHITE - I again thank you for your ruling, Mr President, and make it clear that it is not my intention to refer to any honourable member in this House or in the other place adversely or in a personal sense. I am merely saying that the reason for the initiative by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Kennett, is that by precipitating an early election he is endeavouring to cover up events which would otherwise become publicly known. During the course of 1991, the events which transpire will become clear and public knowledge. They are of great concern to me and to a number of constituents who have directed these matters to my attention. A number of companies are involved, and I will name them: Australian Merchant Holdings, Triako Resources, Australian Venture Capital, Turobint, Strand, Delphic and Crossince. Those seven companies have been the beneficiaries of a number of loans. They have been asset-stripped of all their wealth-creating assets, which have been sold off before receiving the loans; one of them was a $2 company. In relation to those companies, heavy losses were incurred on share transactions. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1632 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Andrew Kroger was a director of Australian Venture Capital, Strand, Delphic, Crossince and Turobint; Michael Kroger was a director of Australian Merchant Holdings, Avcorp and Turobint. Another gentleman was a beneficiary by being a director of Australian Merchant Holdings, Australian Venture Capital and Strand. I make it clear that those seven companies were the beneficiaries of more than a dozen loans. Those loans came from one person and that one person was a director of three of the companies. All the loans came from one source, one particular financial institution. That financial institution was Tricontinental. The person who made the loans was Ian Johns. The director of three companies was lan Johns. Two of the loans were defaulted on, and substantial losses were incurred at the expense of the taxpayers of Victoria. Australian Merchant Holdings -- Hon. M. A. Birrell - Are you quoting from the Sunday Age? Hon. D. R. WHITE - No. Hon. M. A. Birrell -It's the same stuff! Hon. D. R. WHITE - I will make clear what I am quoting from; I am quoting from a letter from Bruce Ziebell to lan Johns regarding the losses of Tricontinental through share transactions. Those share transactions involved Australian Merchant Holdings, which recorded losses of $73000 and Avcorp, which recorded losses of approximately $74 000. The Leader of the Opposition has asked: what caused the sale of the State Bank? That question has been raised by Mr Baxter also. One thing is absolutely clear: no member of the government was involved or close to any transaction, be it a share transaction or a loan transaction. Who were the people with their fingers in the till which caused the loss of $2.7 million? I will name them: Andrew Kroger - the close friend of lan Johns who had the clear carriage of distributing the funds from Tricontinental, and who was the beneficiary? Michael Kroger -- Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) - On a point of order, Mr President, the Minister has clearly departed from anything remotely relating to the Bill. He mentioned $73 000 as being responsible for the loss of the State Bank. Nothing could be more ludicrous than that. His comments go beyond any discussion about the merits of the Bill; he is simply using this opportunity as a vehicle for personal attack upon individuals. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - On the point of order, I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Kennett, is seeking an early election to cover up a whole range of transactions and to cover up the conduct of the President of the liberal Party and Mr Farrow. Their conduct will be the subject of extensive public comment during the course of the year, after the election date that the opposition is seeking. It is entirely reasonable to lead argument about the fact that the opposition wants an election because it has something to cover up. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1633 Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) -On the same point of order, Mr President, there is a serious question of relevance which the Leader of the Government has sought to obscure. Apart from the fact that the information he is purporting to provide has been in all the newspapers so that the question of a cover-up could not occur, making what he is saying irrelevant, there is also the serious problem that the Bill does not in any way mandate an election; it simply facilitates an election and his whole point has been that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to force an election. The Bill does not do that. Anything relevant to the Bill concerns facilitating an election, not mandating or forcing one. The PRESIDENT - Order! I have indicated the limits open to the Leader of the Government, and I have been watching carefully to see whether those limits are transgressed. I must say that over the last few minutes, before the point of order was raised, I was beginning to wonder about the relevance of information being raised, which appears to be substantially on the public record already. The Minister must immediately relate his remarks to the Bill if he is to pursue that course but it does seem that he is going beyond the ambit either of the reasons real or alleged for the Bill, and his remarks certainly bear no relation to the subject matter of the Bill. There is one other apparent objection he is taking and that is that the matters he now raises are the subject of a Royal Commission into the Tricontinental affair, and the sub judice rule has generally been applied to the matters before Royal Commissions, which therefore are not normally discussed in Parliament unless an overriding issue of public importance exists. Where it is alleged that such overriding public importance exists it is normal to do so by way of a separate substantive motion and not by raising a matter as an extraneous matter in debate. I therefore rule that the matters on which the Leader of the Government has been embarking appear to be extraneous and will be ruled out of order unless he relates them in the next 3 minutes. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I thank you again for the ruling, Mr President. I am not canvassing the merits of issues that will be the subject of the Royal Commission, I am just saying that they will come up during the course of this year when the commission begins to deal with transactions, which is after its preliminary report. I also make it clear that these transactions that the opposition is referring to have not become public; that Turobint and Triako Resources are not matters that have previously been the subject of any publicity. I also make it clear that no-one has put together the enormity of the association which the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Kennett, is seeking to cover up regarding lan Johns where it is clearly established that he had a great deal of licence. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) -On a point of order, Mr President, the Leader of the Government in this House has suggested that the Leader of the Opposition in another CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1634 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 place is seeking to cover up an act that he alleges is improper. I find that offensive and ask that that remark be withdrawn. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - Mr President, if the Leader of the Opposition is concerned that I am suggesting an improper act, I withdraw that statement. What I am saying is that these events will be the subject of deliberation by the Royal Commission when it deals with transactions, and at least two of these transactions have never previously been the subject of public concern, nor has any attempt been made publicly to draw together the enormity of the association between - Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) -On a point of order, Mr President, the Leader of the Government is convicting himself out of his own mouth by attempting to pre-empt matters coming before the Royal Commission which you, Mr President, have drawn attention to as improper in a debate of this sort. He has said that these matters will come before the Royal Commission and that the case has not been put previously. He is anticipating the type of advocacy to be put before the Royal Commission. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I am making it clear that transactions have not yet been the subject of the Royal Commission; that is known to everyone who has followed it. Transactions will become the subject of the Royal Commission. It is a discretion of the Royal Commission as to which transactions -- Hon. M. A. Birrell - So these ones might not? Hon. D. R. WHITE - I make it clear that I am not canvassing the merits of the issues; I am just saying these are issues that everyone knows will arise during the course of 1991. Hon. M. A. Birrell - How do you know? You are pre-empting the Royal Commission that your government established. Hon. D. R. WHITE - This is the reason that Jeff Kennett wants an early election. It is of the utmost importance that the public knows the reasons. The PRESIDENT - Order! When the Leader of the Government in describing transactions to come before the Royal Commission uses words such as "enormity", he is to a degree anticipating the results of matters coming before the Royal Commission and that is not in accordance with the spirit of the way the sub judice rule is interpreted in this and other Westminster Parliaments. I ask him to desist from that. Apart from that he is at this moment endeavouring to comply with my ruling and relate what he is saying to the Bill. He has not completed that course yet and I will give him another few minutes to relate what he is endeavouring to say to the Bill. Unless he can do that he will be ruled out of order on the basis that he is introducing extraneous matters that are irrelevant to the Bill. Hon. D. R. WHITE - I thank you, Mr President, for that opportunity. My concern is that there have been more than fourteen loan transactions in which lan Johns was directly CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1635 and personally involved in granting the loans. He was the beneficiary of share issues in relation to those loans. He was a director of at least three of the companies that had an influence over a number of the other companies, and in each case either Andrew Kroger or Michael Kroger was directly involved. Andrew Kroger is a close personal and professional associate of lan Johns and that provided the setting in which a great many of the problems associated with Tricontinental occurred. I want to lead argument on behalf of the government -- Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) -On a point of order, Mr President, it is manifestly obvious that the Leader of the Government is not only ignoring your ruling but is ignoring his own statement to you that he was not passing any value judgment at all. He just made a comment which is clearly an allegation that is contemptuous of the Royal Commission and is predicting the outcome of its conclusions. In addition to that, if the Minister has any advice, he should be providing evidence to the Royal Commission rather than simply engaging in a personal smear campaign with no evidence. Mr President, I ask you to call the Minister back to his own statement to you that he would not pass value judgments, which he has just done, and to ensure that he is not going to act in a manner that would be contemptuous of the Royal Commission. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - On the point of order, Mr President, I was grateful for the opportunity you provided in enabling me to elaborate on the relationship between these events and this piece of proposed legislation. From my point of view it is sufficient that I have placed clearly on the record my concern and I do not wish to pursue that particular line of argument any further. There are other matters I wish to raise. The PRESIDENT - Order! I need to formally rule on it. The Leader of ~e Government has gone beyond the scope which I indicated the sub judice rule allowed. If he desires to make conclusions on matters before the Royal Commission or matters which will be dealt with by the Royal Commission he can do so only by way of a substantive motion and then only if I rule that there is an overriding public interest which causes the waiver or modification of that rule. He cannot do that on this debate. A moment ago he was going beyond my previous ruling which I now elaborate and confirm. Therefore, at that point he was out of order. I would ask him, however, to relate his remarks generally to the Bill. Hon. D. R. WHITE - I am making it clear to the House that there are substantial reasons why Jeff Kennett wants an early election. It is quite clear that it relates to friends he is trying to protect. He has substantially changed his view expressed in May 1984 about how constitutional change ought to be brought about. He was then a party to constitutional change that said no government should have the right to call an election within the first three years of the Parliament. He has contradicted the format for changing the Constitution. His reasons for doing so are, firstly, that he wants an election to occur without telling the people of Victoria what he has in mind for the first three years by way of policy let alone what he may have in CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1636 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 mind for the first 50 or 100 days. He wants to get away without seeking a mandate. He is pursuing a course of action and a set of tactics designed to ensure that he does not have to put any policy before the people of Victoria. The government is not supporting this Bill and it is not allowing an election to be called until he comes clean and puts his policies on the table. Clearly the government is making one other observation -- Honourable members interjecting. The PRESIDENT - Order! When opposition speakers were interrupted by barrages of interjections, I prevented those barrages in its favour. The same now applies when the Leader of the Government is speaking. I ask the opposition not to engage in barrages of interjections. Hon. D. R. WHITE - The issue that the people of Victoria want to know about is whether this person has changed in character. Is it the same person who lost the election in 1985 in whom they did not have confidence? Let it be clear that until he puts the policies on the table and has had a reasonable opportunity to canvass them, and until the people of Victoria have had a reasonable opportunity to see him at work - we saw him at work this week in the preselections, so we know something about his authority - by using this tactic today of trying to have this Bill passed through the Legislative Council, the opposition is seeking to take steps to precipitate an election because the opposition has mates. It has mates whose fortunes will be made known in 1991 and whose activities will be fully exposed in 1991. Their activities will be fully exposed, not partially exposed. They are Bill Farrow, Michael Kroger, who is the State President of the Liberal Party, and Graham Samuel, who is the State Treasurer of the Uberal Party. The people of Victoria will get a very clear idea of the nature of the party they are looking at to govern Victoria. They will be looking at people like the President of the Uberal Party and the Treasurer of the Uberal Party, whose sole cause is to live by keeping their fingers in the public purse, and we want to make sure they do not do that. Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - On a point of order, Mr President, once again the Leader of the Government is using this place as a coward's castle to smear individuals who cannot respond and defend themselves. He has now departed from his sole argument on the Bill - and I apologise for the fact that it caused spontaneous laughter on our side of the Chamber - and is moving back to where he was before. He is moving to a different set of people, but with the same objective of not moving a substantive motion, and departing from the Bill and smearing individuals. I ask you, Mr President, again to remind us of your ruling about the need not to stray from the Bill and not to just get on to talking about individuals without in any way relating those remarks specifically to the Bill and the reasons for the Bill. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1637 Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - On the point of order, I have concluded my remarks and I merely wish to say that we oppose the Bill. Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) - The Leader of the Government has done what he always does when he is in a corner. When he has no answer to anything, he makes slurs and attacks on people that have no relevance to the subject matter and when those people are not in a position to defend themselves in this House. The Leader of the Government is a past master at slurring people as a device to divert attention from what is really happening. This government is discredited in every possible manner. The government needs to go to an election and it is being given an opportunity by the opposition today to go to an election and get the public's support if it believes that is what the public wants. If the government believes it can get the public's support, it simply has to pass this Bill and the Premier can go to the Governor and recommend an election. Honourable members have just heard a cowardly attack on people just because they happen to be associated with the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Government thinks he can divert attention from the issue by creating this attack on them. It is a tragedy that the Leader of the Government, who has actually been an outstanding Leader and Minister during some periods of this government, has now reverted to his old opposition approach. I suppose he is getting into practice for what will happen when he goes back into opposition after thee next election. The Leader of the Gove:rnment has consistently defied your rulings, Mr President, and has used every excuse possible to make these other attacks in an attempt to get some publicity for the government and to divert attention from the issue. Let us consider the real reasons for wanting to have an election. They have nothing to do with covering anything up. They relate to giving the public the opportunity of effecting judgment on this government. In 1984 Parliament passed amendments to the Constitution Act to enable fixed Parliamentary terms. You may recall, Mr President, that the opposition was calling for four-year fixed terms but that this government was not prepared to go along with that. Therefore, in the end the government came up with the provision that operates at present, allowing for three-year fixed terms, plus one year during which time the government can call an election of its own choosing. If the Leader of the Government had actually gone back and read the record of debate in those days he would have seen that the arguments advanced by the opposition for fixed terms was to bring stability back into the State. What have we been given by the government? We have had the most unstable government this State has seen in its history. We have seen change after change in the Ministry; there has been a leadership change, and we are probably about to see another leadership change fairly soon considering the way the government is going. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1638 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 There has been no stability. We have seen the government reeling from crisis to crisis. It has no idea where to go or how to govern, and it has no idea how to get Victoria out of the mess it is in at the moment. The Leader of the Government talks about the Liberal Party putting policies on the table. When did the government ever put its policies on the table? The policies that the government is pursuing bear no real resemblance at all to the things it talked about before the last election. The government has simply chopped and changed and done anything it can in a desperate endeavour to stay in power. The government was elected in 1988, and the present Leader of the Opposition lost that election in 1988, not because of any lack of effort or credibility of the Leader of the Opposition: the government was elected because it covered up what was going on. It covered up what was happening with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) and Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. It was because the former Premier, Mr Cain, went to the election saying there were no problems in those areas that the public was seduced into voting for the Labor Party. Of course, fewer members of the public voted for the government than for the opposition, but, nonetheless, the government won the majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly because the public was misled about the true state of affairs in Victoria. Therefore, the government has no mandate, and certainly the current Premier and the Deputy Premier, who were not the Premier and the Deputy Premier before the last election, have no mandate at all to be in power or to state the policies, whatever they are, that they are now pursuing. Indeed, we still do not know what this government will do about Victoria's economy. Hon. Licia Kokocinski - Yes you do. Hon. HADDON STOREY - The Premier has said that she will bring in an economic statement in June, some time after Parliament rises. That is typical of the government. It is not even prepared to bring important statements into the House. The position is quite simple: under the Constitution Act it is not possible to have an election before October this year unless one of three events happen, and the'government has made it clear that it will not cooperate in those three events. One of the arguments of the government has been that you cannot have an election because there are constitutional impediments to doing so. Therefore, we introduced this simple Bill which does not compel an election and which does not force the Premier to go to an election. It certainly does not force the Governor to do anything. All it does is to remove these constitutional impediments for this Parliament, not for the future. The Constitution will continue to operate with fixed terms for three years. However, the Bill applies to this Parliament and will enable an election to be held at the time the Premier chooses. I cannot understand why the government is frightened of power being given to the Premier. The Bill does not give any power to the opposition; it simply empowers the Premier to call an election. The people on the other side of the House are CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1639 frightened of being given the power to call an election at the time of the Premier's choosing. They are frightened because they know the people of Victoria believe the government is discredited and that they should be given an opportunity of voting so they can express their views. If the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development really believed in the statements he made he would be prepared to go to an election. He would be prepared to go to the public and allow them to vote. It is apparent that the government has no logical or factual argument on which to debate the Bill and is simply relying on attacks and slurs on individuals who are not in a position to defend themselves. The government is refusing to recognise the fact that the public wants the opportunity of an election. The opposition believes the Bill provides an opportunity, not a disability, for the government, and I strongly support it. Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - I shall make this initial comment: the Bill can be seen only as a cynical, political, expedient measure and a vicious, despicable grab for power. It is a blatant contradiction to the contributions of and attitudes expressed by members of the opposition in 1984 when the Constitution (Duration of Parliament)(No.2) Bill was debated. In 1984 members of the opposition made many comments in support of the Bill. The debate took place over four weeks and I recall - I checked this in Hansard - that the National Party believed there was not enough time for consultation. It wanted the debate on the Bill to be held over until the next sessional period. Unfortunately for the National Party, commonsense prevailed and the Bill was debated and passed. What has happened since then? What has brought about this change in attitude? Why is there a need to suddenly shift the goal posts? Why is it necessary to make changes and bring about a cynical grab for power by moving an amendment to the Constitution? Members of the opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, are concerned when the performances and activities of individuals involved with Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and the Pyramid Building Society are discussed. Since the debate in 1984 considerable changes have taken place in the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. As the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development said, in 1984 the Leader of the Opposition made a statement fully supporting the change to the Constitution. He even suggested, as did Mr Birrell, that there should be a fixed four-year term and that there should be no provision for bringing on an early election. The change in attitude of the Leader of the Opposition first came to light in October 1986. It did not take him long to change his mind. In one of his usual outbursts, the Leader of the Opposition described his colleagues as "a pack of wimpish bastards" when they refused to kowtow to his whims regarding the blocking of Supply. As a result, you, Mr President, resigned as Leader of the Opposition in this House and called an election in your party room to get rid of the person who described your colleagues as wimpish bastards. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1640 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 A number of attitudes have been expressed today that contradict the attitudes expressed in 1984 and that leads to only one conclusion: members of the opposition are after power and they are prepared to do anything to get it. They are even prepared to distort the proper procedures and amend the Constitution to achieve their greedy goals. At the commencement of the 1984 debate the then Leader of the National Party in this House, Mr Dunn, clearly indicated his support for the Bill. On 4 September 1984 he stated: The National Party supports the concept of four-year terms for the Parliament ... Governments tend to have a short-term election mentality. this certainly applies when governments are elected for only three years. A government elected for that amount of time is in a constant state of campaigning and does not concentrate on the long-term needs of the State. The National Party considers it reasonable to include the fleXibility of a further year. During the course of the debate Mr Birrell had a lot to say, including this statement: Unfortunately, however, the Bill ignores some of the more important constitutional changes that have been proposed by the Parliamentary Liberal Party, and even more damaging for the Labor government is the fact that it ignores many of the proposals contained in the Labor Party's State platform. The measure refers to four-year terms for Parliaments and to fixed terms of Parliaments as well. Like my Parliamentary colleagues in the Liberal Party, I support the proposal. However, we believe it should go much further than it currently goes. In other words, he was supporting a fixed term of Parliament. That is contrary to the position he espoused today. He goes on to say: It is really only during the second year of a three-year term that the real work of the government is done, when the serious and often painful decisions are made in the interests of the State, unencumbered by cynical political pressures. That is what we are seeing today: cynical, political pressures brought about by the Leader of the Opposition in his campaign to grab power in Victoria. The Jeff Kennett grand vision for Victoria; the Jeff Kennett grand vision to grab power. This is the Jeff Kennett who has often brought about such serious states of affairs that no one in his right mind could tolerate this person being let loose as Premier of Victoria. His record is abysmal. He is a contradiction to all the decent things that occur in this Parliament. He has repeatedly flouted the Parliamentary system and he has abused his colleagues. He will do anything to become Premier. Associated with the concerns of the opposition to bring about a quick election are the concerns expressed by the Leader of the Government, and they are clear and real. However, there are other concerns. You people over there are concerned that the longer this person remains Leader of the Opposition the greater the chance of him putting his foot in his mouth! It is only a matter of time before this occurs. Hon. Rosemary Varty - You can talk! Hon. B. W. MIER - The clock is ticking. What we see is a very short, fast-burning fuse attached to a stick of gelignite that is about to explode. I should say it is a penny bunger. That is probably a better description. If you continue to hold it, it will explode in your face. That is one of the reasons why you people wish to bring about an early election! CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1641 Jeff Kennett is incompetent, incapable and -- Hon. R. I. Knowles - Stop describing yourself! Hon. B. W. MIER - He is incompetent and he lacks the leadership ability to become Premier of Victoria. This is a vicious, cynical, politically expedient Bill that can only be described as an outrageous grab for power. Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) - The community overwhelmingly wants a change of government. Never in the history of Victoria has a government recorded such low levels of support over such a long period. That cannot be disputed, even by the most ardent supporter of the government. The government's response to this date and to the widespread call for an election has been, ''We cannot and we will not go to an election". This Bill removes the 11cannot" excuse. It does no more than that. It simply allows the Premier to advise the Governor of an election. That is why the government is so diametrically opposed to it but will not spell out the real reason. From the Leader of the Government we have seen a return to his previous stance in opposition, but he was nowhere near as good today as he was when he was last in opposition. The burdens and responsibilities of government have changed his capacity to be the dirty fighter he was in opposition. Hon. D. R. White - We're just starting! Hon. R. I. KNOWLES - If this is just starting, can we move a few stages forward? It is having no impact whatsoever. What people are facing is not the problem of whose mate is whose but their incapacity to maintain their standards of living, their jobs and their mortgage payments and their incapacity to have confidence in a whole range of services they look forward to the State providing: education, health, transport. That is what the community is focusing on. That is why the Minister's response today confirms in people's minds that they want an election soon. The government's response shows how out of touch it is with the reality of the community's feelings. The response we heard today confirms the worst fears. There was no explanation as to why a longer period in government will lead to a turnaround in Victoria's economy. The government cannot do it. It has no idea. The Leader of the government himself knows one of the policy changes has to be the privatisation of the Loy Yang B power station but he cannot get it embraced by the government. That is the sort of issue the community wants addressed. They see it as not being addressed and that is why they want an early election. The opposition is removing the last impediment the government might wheel out, which is to say, ''This is the reason we cannot have an election". All members of this House are well aware of the chitter-chatter around the corridors and the discussions going on in the Labor Party as to when the Premier will be replaced. The government is going to replace her because she has failed to capture the public's imagination. It does not want an election until it replaces the Premier. That is one of the reasons why it does not want an CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1642 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 early election but it will not save the government. Government members are desperately hoping a few of them might be able to survive if they can delay the election long enough. Mr Mier's contribution was that the opposition has the audacity to want to be in power. That is what the opposition is guilty of in Mr Mier's eyes; the opposition aspires to be the government. Of course we aspire to be the government! We aspire to be the government through an election. Hon. W. A. Landeryou - What about the rules? Hon. R. I. KNOWLES -lbis opposition would not break the rules. We have never been involved in a Nunawading scandal! We have never issued false how-ta-vote cards and then ensured that the person responsible is put into Parliament! That is not part of the Liberal Party's approach. We seek to meet the demand of the overwhelming proportion of the community over a considerable time to bring about an early election in order that the Victorian people may express their views. Many of the honourable members opposite and in another place will be replaced in an election, and they will not all be replaced by coalition members. The Labor Party's research, which is similar to the coalition's, shows that in some of the very strong Labor areas Labor will be replaced by independents. The Labor Party has so lost touch with its own support base that it is being deserted. There is no doubt as to the community's attitude on the Bill, which simply removes the 11can't" reason. The government will not allow it to be debated and passed in the Legislative Assembly because it would remove the last impediment the government is able to hold out as a reason why there cannot be an early election. Sitting suspended 1.1 p.m. until 2.7 p.nt. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS Oika Jika) - I find it difficult, if not impossible, to treat the proposal of the opposition seriously. If it were not for the fact that it has such serious consequences it would be just a joke. I do not believe anyone in the opposition takes it seriously or has his or her heart in it at all. There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case - they know it is a gimmick, we know it is a gimmick and the people of Victoria know it is a gimmick. Speeches made by honourable members on the opposition side of the House have been characterised by the fact that they were, to quote an earlier great thinker, "inaccurate, brutish and short". Opposition members clearly do not have their hearts in this proposal. As my colleagues have pointed out, opposition members have been prepared to contradict all the fine words they used in supporting the Constitution Bill when it first came before Parliament. In that context they cannot be taken seriously; they have no credibility on this issue. The consequences of the Bill's proceeding do not have much to do with elections but have a great deal to do with the undermining of the Victorian Constitution. It would set a precedent under which any government that happened to be in power in both Houses of Parliament would be able simply to say, "We can temporarily change the Constitution to CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1643 do whatever we want to dlo; we have a precedent, it has been done before", It is not good enough for the opposition to come into this place and put up a proposal of this sort without having given adequate and serious thought to the consequences of such an action for the Constitution. To understand why the opposition is putting up this proposal to change the Constitution one really has to go back some weeks when a few desperate men and women who were worried about their political survival in preselection contests in the Liberal Party decided it was time for desperate action. The desperate action involved giving up all principles, and not worrying about policies or leadership or responsibility and, instead, calling in the terminator who, in this instance, was Jeff Kennett. The party thought it could control him but it had about as much chance of controlling him as controlling the original terminator, Amold Schwarzenegger, and in this instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger was Jeff Kennett. Hon. W. R. Baxter - Who? Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - Don't you watch your children's television programs? Hon. W. R. Baxter - I have more to do than watch television. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - They thought they could control him but he has run amok. Since being elected he said he wants to terminate the jobs of 3500 public servants in the greatest witch-hunt since Joseph McCarthy. That is the sort of proposal he has put and that is the sort of policy on which the opposition is running. He wants to terminate all his opposition in the late Liberal Party in the greatest purge since Joseph Stalin. Honourable members interjecting. Hon. R. I. Knowles - This is over-the-top stuff! Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - You are experiencing it right now. Now he wants to terminate the rock upon which this Parliament is built - the Victorian Constitution. Make no mistake; were it to be passed this Bill would seriously undermine the Constitution. Hon. R. I. Knowles - What, so that we can have an election? Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - The first of the attempts by the opposition is very worrying. I wonder whether legislation will be required to sack the 3500 people on the hit list. I also wonder whether amendments to the Constitution may not be required so that the Supreme Court does not challenge those sackings. Who knows and who cares? Certainly not Jeff Kennett and certainly not the opposition because today they have shown they have no sense of responsibility. They have no responsibility for the Constitution of this great State. Hon. W. R. Baxter - A once-great State. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - The great liberal thinker John Stuart Mill -- CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1644 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Hon. Rosemary Varty - He talked about life being short. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - Since you know nothing about liberalism I will give you a lesson. Honourable members interjecting. Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - Surely they know about that although they don't know much. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - I do not think so, Mr Mackenzie. John Stuart Mill defended democracy and the rule of law and the need for constitutional and legislative guarantees to protect the rights of citizens against the tyranny of a temporary majority or against-- Hon. R. I. Knowles - That is what you are and what you want. Honourable members interjecting. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - I do not like it but it happens to be the truth. Protection against popular tyrannical leaders like Jeff Kennett, John Stuart Mill -- Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) - On a point of order, Mr President, for Mr Theophanous to describe the Leader of the Opposition as tyrannical is beyond the pale. I ask that that be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT - Order! In any event I do not believe John Stuart Mill accused Jeff Kennett of anything. Hon. R. I. KNOWLES - That is how Mr Theophanous described him. The PRESIDENT - Order! He described John Stuart Mill as being against tyrannical leaders like Jeff Kennett. That is an ambiguous statement. Can you clarify your statement, Mr Theophanous? Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS Oika) - I will be glad to. The PRESIDENT - Order! And make sure it does not create an imputation. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - I am sure John Stuart Mill did not have Jeff Kennett in mind when he spoke of tyranny. John Stuart Mill would turn in his grave at what these so-called Liberals are doing today. You are a disgrace to that Liberal philosophy. That is the only way one can describe it. The PRESIDENT - Order! I take it you are speaking to the Chair? Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - Those opposite know to whom I am speaking. Hon. B. T. Pullen - The Chair is impartial. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - You care nought for the Constitution, for Parliament or the rule of law and as I have stated, the great philosophy on which liberalism was CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1645 meant to be based as expressed in my comments about John Stuart Mill does not apply today to the opposition. Hon. Robert Lawson - Because we introduced a Bill into Parliament? Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - You have introduced a Bill which undermines the Constitution and the rule of law. It undermines the protection of citizens against temporary majorities as expressed in the polls, if you want to be more specific. What you have done is a disgrace. In the contribution of members opposite, three main points were made. The first relates to their notion that the Bill is nothing more than a Bill to allow the Australian Labor Party to have an election. Hon. R. M. Hallam - Good point! Hon. Robert Lawson - We go along with that. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - That is nonsense. As I have already stated, the real outcome of this Bill is to undermine the Constitution. The opposition is not prepared to face up to that. If the government wanted an election there are ways under the Constitution for it to occur even before the six months has expired when it would be easily available under the terms of the Constitution. The government can designate Bills as Bills of special importance, and that would prOVide a trigger or a condition for an early election. The government is not pushing an early election against the rules of the Constitution. The opposition is doing that and is seeking to circumvent the Constitution - for what reason? It is for only six months because in six months the Premier can legitimately call an election under the terms of the Constitution. If anyone believes that somehow or other the great opposition will fix the problems of Victoria in the next six months, he is living in cuckoo land. No-one believes that. Everyone knows the claim is a gimmick. The second argument put by the opposition related to the effects of the recession and how Victoria had been hit harder than any other State. Of course we do not deny that Victoria has been hit hard by the recession, but if an opposition simply seeks to kick the governing party out of government whenever that government experiences bad times, to create the circumstances for an election simply because it happens to suit it at the time, what kind of constitutional rule of law would we have? Hon. R. M. Hallam - A good one! Hon. R. S. de Fegely -What a load of nonsense! Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - Mr Hallam did not support that position earlier. There are legitimate reasons why the recession has hit harder in Victoria than elsewhere. Manufacturing has been affected by the recession more than other sectors of the economy CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1646 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 and manufacturing is centred in Victoria. One would expect that if manufacturing is hit hard by the recession inevitably Victoria would.Iikewise be affected. The manufacturing industry is potentially Victoria's greatest strength because when the recession is over Victoria will experience stronger growth than other States and will lead the country in the recovery to come. The government is presently putting policies in place which will address the issues that are of concern to the people of Victoria. The opposition wants to obstruct the government from getting on with the job. The third major point made by the opposition, in fact Mr Baxter, was that the Constitution is designed to stop opportunism of governments, not the opportunism of oppositions. Mr Baxter is either extremely naive or very ignorant. The Constitution is clearly designed to protect the interests of the government and the opposition. That fact was recognised by Mr Storey during the period when the Constitution Act was being debated. The Herald of 4 May 1983 reported Mr Storey as saying: ... the Bill prOVided that members elected at that election would hold office only until the expiration of the original term. . This was to prevent the possibility of either the government or the opposition to take advantage of a favourable political climate. Obviously Mr Storey does not agree with Mr Baxter because he said either the government or the opp~sition. Mr Birrell was recorded in Hansard of 4 September 1984 as saying: The Bill contains provisions for a fixed three-year term of Parliament and a flexible one-year term in addition to that. Fixed terms of Parliament, in their purest form, as used by many comparable democracies, reduce the extent of the cynical abuse that is often encountered when elections are called early to take advantage of a short-term political trend. I repeat: cynical abuse and a short-term political trend, words that apply to the opposition today. It is found guilty from the words of its own members. My colleague the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development has discussed the reasons for the legislation being introduced today and there is clearly substance to what he has said. The first reason is that the opposition has no program or policies. It wants an election now, six months before it is allowed under the Constitution, but it has no program of what it would do during that six-month period. The opposition just wants to gain government. That is all right in itself, but it should wait until an election can be legitimately called under the Constitution. The opposition obviously believes it does not have a chance of developing its policies during the six-month period. It has to face up to developing policies and programs, and that involves hard work. The opposition has no answer to the problems facing Victoria. It does not understand the problems let alone have answers to them. All it does is use a gimmick to attempt to circumvent the Constitution in order to place itself in power. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1647 The only policies that the opposition has espoused recently are the sacking of 3500 public servants and increasing the number of Ministers by four. That will help the economy of Victoria no end! It will certainly increase the cost of government by at least $1 million. That is the response to the problems of Victoria! It will sack 3500 public servant by going through a list of Australian Labor Party members and with the savings create four extra Ministers! What a bodgie show. The second major reason referred to by the Minister was that key members of the Liberal Party were involved in Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and the collapse of the Pyramid Building Society. I shall not go over those issues, but I make the point that if that is true it is no wonder the opposition is desperate for an election. The third major reason the opposition wants to have an election is because it knows that Jeffrey Kennett has no real substance. It has been shown in the past that he has been a two-time loser and opposition members tremble every time he approaches the media because they wonder how long it will be before he puts his foot in his mouth yet again. He has already done it on the 3500 jobs issue and he will continue to do it. Opposition members know the only chance they have is to get an election early before the community realises that Jeffrey Kennett is the same Jeffrey Kennett they rejected on the last two occasions. He is a populist with no substance and he is an unguided missile and that is the third major reason why opposition members want an election early. The Bill and the actions of the opposition are an insult to the intelligence of Victorians. Opposition members come in here and carry on about doing us a big favour by allowing us the capacity to have an election in less than six months time, if we so desire. If opposition members think anyone believes that they are living in cuckoo land. Everybody sees the naked grab for power and everyone knows that this is another inanity of the opposition Leader. Opposition members have made the wrong strategic decision and have been found out by this little bit of stupidity. The people of Victoria are starting to understand the real reasons for the opposition being so desperate to go to an election as soon as possible. The opposition is prepared to risk the Constitution of this State with something that is nothing more than a stunt that is doomed to failure in the Lower House. It is a stunt that puts the Constitution in jeopardy. The opposition knows that but it does not care. I cannot believe opposition members have their heart in this. I cannot believe Mr Haddon Storey has his heart in this after the way he fought so hard and espoused such high principles during debate on the Constitution. That is why when he was speaking today he was a sad figure. This action is bullying tactics. It has been put up by a bully and if the opposition members had any guts they would stand up to him and say that it is not appropriate. Hon. K. M. Smith - We say it is appropriate; that is why we are here. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - Mr Smith would think it appropriate but Mr Smith would think anything appropriate. The fact that Mr Smith thinks it appropriate simply CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1648 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 adds to my argument. The Constitution was established in 1984 after extensive consultation. Hon. M. T. Tehan - It was not established in 1984; the Constitution has been around a lot longer than that. Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS - It was the subject of extensive consultation in 1984. It was supported by all major parties at the time and it set out in clear language the rules of Parliament and provided stability and certainty to the people of Victoria. That is the stability and certainty that is being jeopardised by this action because, as I have already said, once a precedent of temporarily circumventing the Constitution is set it stands forever on the statutes as a precedent and any future government can simply decide to circumvent the Constitution because it does not like it on a specific occasion. Maybe if the opposition gets into government it might run for three years and then decide it really wants to extend the term to four years or five years so it passes a Bill to change the Constitution and grants itself an extra year or so. It would be able to do that on the basis of the precedent that it is now attempting to establish in this place; that is, that the Constitution can be changed at the whim of whichever party is in government. I wonder what has happened to the high principles and ideals espoused by the Liberal Party in debate on the Constitution when the matter was before the House in 1984. Those principles and ideals have been thrown to the wind because opposition members do not have the guts to stand up to the bullying tactics of their Leader. This is an attempt to bully this House into changing its Constitution for temporary political gain. The opposition's Bill is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of members on this side of the House and it is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of the people of Victoria, who can see through the opposition's reason. This tactic has failed as will all its other tactics. Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) - This is a simple Bill with one simple effect: it facilitates what Victorians want; that is, an election. Victorians want an election and they want it now. Government members have been saying that the Constitution of this State is somehow sacrosanct because this House and the parties involved agreed on its current form in 1984. I have two problems with that, Mr President. Firstly, I do not really see what that has to do with the issue confronting us because it would have been impossible for anyone in 1984 to have foretold what was to take place. Members of this House were not soothsayers; they could not be expected to predict what would happen in five years time. The situation confronting Victoria right now is absolutely unprecedented. There can be no precedent for what we are confronting and it is on that basis that the 1984 debate must be put in its proper context and perspective. We are told that what we are wanting to do undermines the Constitution. We have heard members of the government say it is a gimmick, a stunt, an insult and bully-boy tactics. Hon. T. C. Theophanous - All of that is true. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1649 Hon. R. M. HALLAM - I find that absolutely extraordinary because at the end of the day the Constitution is nothing more than an Act of Parliament. The Constitution was amended in 1984 and the opposition is suggesting it is time to review it again because of the special circumstances in which Victoria finds itself. We say Victoria is experiencing unprecedented circumstances that warrant unprecedented action. If some honourable members are not prepared to concede that, I shall take a couple of minutes to examine the current position. What do the polls suggest would take place if an election were held now? Not that long ago a professional poll was taken in Victoria. It suggested that if an election were held that day every Labor seat in the Legislative Assembly would have been lost. Is any honourable member prepared to argue that that is not an unprecedented circumstance and not a reason to review our Constitution? After such an election the incoming government would be required to appoint an opposition. We have not come across that circumstance before. It is a special circumstance and a reason to review the Constitution. I turn now to some aspects of our economic circumstances. I remind the House of what Mr Birrell said this morning on unemployment. The government has supervised the economic demise of this State. There is now an unacceptable level of unemployment. According to the authorities 10.5 per cent of Victorians are unable to find worthwhile employment. I suspect there may be an undisclosed cap which may be 1 or 2 per cent higher. Again that is an unacceptable circumstance. In addition Victoria is facing a virtual strike in capital investment in the private sector. Employment trends are absolutely chronic. In some areas there is a 20 to 25 per cent downturn. Again that provides an entirely new circumstance. Victoria cannot afford to turn a blind eye to that sort of evidence. In the midst of these problems both major credit agencies have passed judgment on the State of Victoria. Not to put it too unkindly, Victoria has become the basket case of the nation. It is not just sad; it is humiliating to see what has happened to our once great State. The only comparison that does us any credit is to be compared with poor little Tasmania. All this has taken place under the supervision of this discredited Labor government. It is on that basis that the call for an election is coming from every sector of the community. The community wants an election and wants it now. This Bill will simply facilitate that action. I refer to some of the debates that have taken place in the House over the past couple of years and the challenges and charges levelled at the government. There have been charges of conspiracy, of contrivance, of connivance, of duplicity and of every other kind one can lay with respect to the absolute trickery in the way the cost of Victoria's debt is reported to the people and the accounting rules have been torpedoed for the benefit of this administration, the way in which every accepted standard of reporting has been absolutely turned aside - and in many cases they have been rotten standards. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1650 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 In addition we have levelled challenges about the way liabilities have been camouflaged and left unreported in the path of the incoming government. The government has failed to tell the people of Victoria about the extraordinary problems it is leaving in its wake. There was the interest swap debacle, where the Treasurer of this State has tacitly admitted he was involved in an illegal act in which he went out of his way not just to gain the benefit of that interest swap but took the next step and arranged it in such a way that it would not be disclosed to the Parliament of Victoria. In those circumstances the government expects honourable members to accommodate a Bill to retrospectively validate an illegal act at the same time as the person who perpetrated it stays in charge of the public purse. If that does not make it a special circumstance I wonder what ever would! On that basis alone I say the government is totally discredited. I believe it justifies the enormous pressure coming from the electorate to have the opportunity of passing judgment on the government. That is all the people want. The terminology used by Mr Theophanous and others as to the sort of trickery the opposition has been involved in in suggesting that there should be a change to the Constitution is extraordinary. If our ploy is successful, guess what happens. Hon. Licia Kokocinski - You know it won't be successful! Hon. R. M. HALLAM - If it is successful the worst thing that could happen is that the people would go to the polls. That is the challenge. The opposition has been told it is visiting some sort of ill upon Victorians. In fact if the strategy is successful it is offering them the opportunity of voting in a democracy. What an extraordinary argument put by the government. The Bill is framed so that the extension of power, and the extent to which it is an extension of power, is held by the Premier of this State and not by Parliament. How can the government claim it is being disadvantaged by the Bill? That is an extraordinary defence. I have heard the challenge that it is wrong to change the Constitution the first time it comes under pressure. Hon. T. C. Theophanous - That is right. Hon. R. M. HALLAM - But when one gets to the bottom line one finds that our Constitution is nothing more than an Act of Parliament. How can we be putting it at risk when we are bringing the issue before Parliament, which was responsible for writing the Constitution? How can we be risking anything when all we are suggesting is that the rules of the game as written in 1984 should be reviewed not by the government but by Parliament? Our Constitution is unique. It is an attempt to codify the practices on which the community understands we rely as part of the Westminster system of Parliament. Our fountain of legitimacy in Victoria is the Westminster system. Our Constitution sets out CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1651 the precedents by which we should settle our affairs but it is not set in concrete. It is simply a judgment by Parliament. It is an Act of Parliament like any other. So I say to government members that 1984 is absolutely irrelevant. That debate involved amendment to our Constitution in a completely different environment. The people of Victoria want an election. I suggest they have already made that judgment. If Mr Theophanous is not getting that message out in the electorate, he is walking around in cloud-cuckoo land. How much further down the track do we have to go before someone tells Mr Theophanous he should lift his game? I do not believe we should adopt that course. The basis on which the Bill is introduced relates to the restoration of the economic well-being of Victoria, which currently rests with 46 people in the other place. So far recovery has been denied in the other place. An irony is that the view of government members in this House will not matter because they will not get a chance to test the water. They will be treated as being irrelevant, and perhaps there is something appropriate about that. Notwithstanding the justifications and rationalisations used by the government, the only reason it does not want an election is that it knows it is for the chop! That is why there is so much interest in this debate and why the government's defence is so spirited. It should be clear to Mr Theophanous and other government members who have tried to defend their position that the government is on the way out. Yet government members have the gall to say the opposition is trying to manipulate the will of the people. Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected. Hon. R. M. HALLAM - The fact remains that the vast majority of Victorians want the chance to pass judgment on the government, and they want it now; and all this Bill does is to provide that opportunity. The Leader of the Government and Mr Theophanous have said that the opposition should be patient and wait for its chance at the next election - which will be called at the Premier's convenience and which may be held in six months or eighteen months. But the many Victorians who have contacted me say that such a wait is too long and that the cost to Victoria each day this government remains in control is a price Victorians can no longer afford. For that reason they are prepared to do almost anything to get the chance to pass judgment on the Labor government. It is important that members opposite understand that we are asking for no more or less than the opportunity to allow the Victorian electorate to go to the polls. If the government is as efficient and effective as it claims, it has nothing to fear from an election. The Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill precipitates the calling of an election by removing one of the impediments to the calling of it. The amendment to the Act would not stipulate that an election must be called; instead it would give the CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1652 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Premier the chance to call an election if she were game. Of course the problem is that the Premier knows full well that the calling of an election would be the beginning of the demise of her government. I shall comment on two of the defences put by the Leader of the Government. He talked about cover-ups and conspiracies and said that the Bill is a result of the bully-boy tactics of Jeff Kennett. He harped on the fact that the opposition was anticipating bad news down the track. In other words, he is saying that the opposition wants to rush to an election to head off the announcement of bad news. Apart from admitting that I take on board his comments because I regard him as an expert in such matters as a result of his part in the 1988 pre-election Victorian Economic Development Corporation saga, I cannot understand how the points he makes in his argument could be advantageous to the opposition. If the Bill were passed the opposition would still not have the chance to say when an election should be called, because control of the government agenda would remain with the government; instead, the Bill would ensure that this would be the last time that the government could claim that a constitutional impediment was preventing it from calling an election. Therefore, the conspiracy theory put forward by the Leader of the Government is totally irrelevant. He also invited the opposition to put its policies on the table; he said the government would be prepared to call an election when all of the opposition's policies are on the table. I should like to talk to him about that to find out what he has in mind - the number of policies, their subject matter, and so on. Then we will be able to enunciate the policies we have released and invite him to keep his promise. Hon. Licia Kokocinski - Is this the Nationals or the coalition? Hon. R. M. HALLAM - The coalition - I make it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the coalition. Hon. T. C. Tbeophanous - You're a bit touchy about that, Roger. Hon. R. M. HALLAM - No, I am not touchy about that; I make it absolutely clear that I am speaking on behalf of the coalition. Hon. D. R. White interjected. Hon. R. M. HALLAM - I shall conclude on the same note on which I began by saying that this is a simple Bill that would have a simple effect: it would remove the impediment being used by the government to justify its refusal to try its hand with the electorate. The Bill says nothing about the time by which an election must be held; it does nothing more than invite the Premier to nominate a date. I suggest that such an invitation is appropriate given the economic crisis confronting us, so I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. R. S. IVES (Eumemmerring) - Mr Birrell has seen fit to introduce this private member's Bill, the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill, on behalf of the opposition. Not surprisingly opposition speakers have engaged in spurious pieces of special pleading or have made contributions laced with sophistry and slyness. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1653 It is particularly notable that members of the opposition have not canvassed all of the arguments used in support of the 1984 Constitution amendment Bill, which is why, unlike Mr Hallam, members of the government do not consider that Bill to be irrelevant to today's debate. We consider it to be highly relevant, because this Bill seeks to circumvent the provisions of the 1984 amendment to the Constitution by providing a temporary constitutional facility that would allow an early election within the now three-year fixed term of Parliament. The reason Mr Birrell gave for introducing his Bill is that government unpopularity is so manifest and permanent that only an election followed by a new government headed by Mr Jeff Kennett would result in renewed progress in this State. We say that is not a credible claim. The real motivation for the introduction of the Bill is blatant political opportunism and hoped-for political gain. As the Leader of the Government has said, the Bill tries to change the rules of the game at the three-quarter way mark, despite the fact that the present rules are the very same that the opposition parties helped to formulate during the two years of negotiation between 1983 and 1984. With much sanctimoniousness and fanfare the opposition supported the 1984 amendment to the Constitution. It is plain that the opposition wants to rush to an election while the opinion polls have Mr Kennett and the coalition on a high. Hon. W. R. Baxter intetjected. Hon. R. S. IVES - This is not a State governed by opinion polls, Mr Baxter, and no man is more aware of their untrustworthiness, volatility and fickleness than Mr Jeff Kennett, who said in an interview with the Australian Financial Review on 10 May: I've been in this game long enough to know that there are times when I'm more popular and there were times when I was not. And sometimes I've been very unpopular. I may be popular today, but there's no guarantee that I'll be popular tomorrow. That is why we have this whirlwind campaign to force the government to the polls. Mr Jeff Kennett is desperate to grasp the flood tide of his fortune and so sweep into office before the inevitable decline in his popularity, which is understandable. His past levels of popularity are able to match anything achieved by the present government. It is worth mentioning that as measured by the Morgan Gallup Poll, Mr Jeff Kennett's personal approval rating in May, September and October 1987 was 27 per cent - but he could go still lower. In October 1986 his personal approval rating was 25 per cent, but he could go lower still. In December 1985, his personal approval rating was measured at 24 per cent - as it will be again, particularly when the lack of substance in his strategies becomes obvious. The government did not heed Mr Jeff Kennett's call to resign; and he will not be able to force this Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Mr Jeff Kennett was not able to block the passing of the Appropriation Bill in the other House, and he will not be able to sustain the momentum of his stay-tuned campaign CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1654 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 during the long months of winter. Certainly he will not have the momentum to block Supply in October. His attention seeking antics and glibness and secret "stay tuned" tactics have already started a drift of articles from page 1 to page 2 and from page 2 to page 3. There can be no greater horror for a populist politician. As the months stretch into a year Mr Jeff Kennett will be increasingly deserted by his public who increasingly, despise his tricks, gimmicks and antics, will realise he has nothing to say. Increasingly he will be asked to define what he will do. The mindless litany of quotes: "Stay tuned"; "don't expect anything from politicians or governments"; "this State needs a psychological uplift"; "we will provide a climate where people help themselves";"we will make people believe in themselves"; and "l would like to model my government on Bjelke-Petersen", will appear more and more hollow, empty and ridiculous and buffoonish. Finally like all false Messiahs he will be deserted by the mob, and finally even by the Herald-Sun, which will voice its doubts about his suitability for the job. The opposition should not come into this House and request that we support a Bill which in any way condones or encourages Mr Jeff Kennett's folly. When he became Leader of the Opposition in 1982 he said, "l represent risk". He is indeed a risk. His record is one of division, instability, opportunism and secret strategies. Under Mr Kennett consistency, hard work and innovative, well thought out policies cannot be expected from the opposition. The private member's Bill is a dramatic illustration of this. It was seven years ago that Mr Kennett was in favour of extending the government's term from three to four years with an effective fixed term of three years. Indeed, Mr Kennett took great pride in saying that no longer would governments, particularly Labor governments, be able to call snap elections simply because the government of the day was on a popularity roll; it would allow for greater stability, a much more efficient management of the public sector and above all the pursuit of long-term policies without the need to pander to electoral popularity. Indeed this was so important he said that there should not be a four-year term but a five-year term. But above all Mr Kennett was set against early elections being called in response to opinion polls. Now the opposition is inviting Parliament to amend the Constitution to allow an opportunistic early election to be held in response to the opinion polls. In the debate on the amendment of the Constitution held on 3 March 1984 Mr Kennett was reported in Hansard as having said: The proposed legislation will lead to better management of government. It will lead to the government of the day, regardless of its political colour, having the opportunity of making the hard decisions that are necessary from time to time to allow the government to introduce its policies in line with its philosophies and to concentrate on the management and execution of those policies before being confronted with another election. The proposed legislation is about common sense. It is about applying to government and to Parliament some of the commercial CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1655 principles of management and practice. Any move by any political organisation in any Parliament that recognises that commercial practices should be adopted in the lifestyle of Parliament has to be heading along the right track. On this matter we agree with Mr Kennett. But as well as this private member's Bill many other examples can be given of Mr Jeff Kennett's desire to impulsively respond to what appears to be the needs of the moment unhindered by consistency and of his need to be uninhibited by the discipline of policies or rigorous thinking. Indeed this point can be no better illustrated than by what was said by yourself, Mr President, which was reported in the Age of 18 October 1986: His repeated lack of judgment and his continual tendency to shoot from the lip without thinking of the consequences ... have brought his leadership to a most serious crisis to date. These examples I am about to give certainly harden the resolve of those on this side of the House to in no way facilitate any attempt by Mr Kennett to become Premier. Mr Kennett promised in 1985 and 1988 that Cabinet would be reduced from eighteen to fifteen members. Faced with the test of rewarding supporters the shadow Cabinet number was increased in an unprecedented fashion from eighteen to twenty two members. With untold possibilities of confusion, crossed lines of communication and bizarre groupings, such as making the Attorney-General subordinate to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Mr Kennett continues his inability to provide answers to crucial questions. In a Show Day interview in 1988 with Neil Mitchell on 3AW Mr Kennett was unable to answer the question: what was his position if the Liberals failed to obtain a majority in the Legislative Assembly in their own right? Mr Kennett was unable to answer that question and this caused enormous cost to the Liberal Party. I am sure Mr Baxter remembers that interview. Now Jeff Kennett's answers to questions concerning his strategy for forcing an early election or on his policies receive no reply other than, "Stay tuned". No wonder Saturday's Age - almost in desperation - asked Mr Kennett to give a few answers: to define a few policies and to produce an alternative economic statement in June. Despite some typical and initial vacillation it appears the opposition will continue on with its Parliamentary strike during which legislation is mindlessly blocked. This 'scorched earth' policy caused great political cost to Mr Kennett's predecessor. It is a spiteful sabotaging of the people of Victoria. This is not the action of a principled responsible opposition with some sense of the welfare of the State at its heart. There is then the disturbing feature that somehow Mr Kennett has confused his private and public capacities when he invested in a knitting machine. The act is to be commended but it should not be confused with the role and capacity of government. There is no sign of his capacity or interest in the long-term negotiation of a multi-million dollar project, such as the AMECON frigate project. Such an enterprise spins off millions of dollars to smaller firms in this State. It is not good enough -- Hon. M. T. Tehan - What have you done? CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1656 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Hon. R. S. IVES - This government has produced AMECON and other large scale worthwhile projects. It is not fiddling around the edges. There is no evidence that a Kennett coalition government will in any way be able to solve the problems of this State. We on this side of the House are not going to do anything to facilitate the placing of a coalition government led by Jeff Kennett on the government benches. In Saturday's Age Mr Kennett was quoted in respect of his knitting machine: It may well be that I may have to place this knitting machine in my front garden as a monument to my own recklessness. Where will the monuments to Mr Kennett's recklessness stop? Will they stop with the knitting machine or will they include the Constitution of Victoria and those colleagues he recklessly promised to protect, such as the honourable member for Malvern, and Mr Miles, Mr de Fegely, Mr Macey and Mrs Varty from this House. Will they be among the monuments in his front garden? Will the Liberal Party and the people of Victoria finish up crowded into his front garden? The last years of the 1980s and the 1990s have not been and will not be easy years in which to govern. We are in the bust phase of a boom and bust cycle that has always been the most regular and depressing feature of Australia's economic history. Because of our manufacturing base, Victoria has been hit particularly hard. We have witnessed massive losses incurred by Australian enterprises and entrepreneurs that dwarf previous losses experienced in this country. We have witnessed monstrous losses suffered by financial institutions, including State banks, mainstream private banks and merchant banks. In case there should be any senseless interjections from honourable members opposite, I remind the House of the comments of the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, that no-one on this side of the House has been involved in questionable or untoward behaviour in respect of loans. The financial losses have been a phenomenon across the English-speaking world. For instance, in America spectacular losses to the tune of between $140 billion and $180 billion have been suffered by savings and loans institutions. Virtually no large city in America has gone unscathed. The problem is not being experienced only in Victoria. It is nonsense for members of the opposition to say that New South Wales has not suffered in a similar fashion. Despite the attempt of the New South Wales government to hide the true facts, the size of its deficit is now becoming public knowledge. For instance, a rigorous examination published in the New Accountant, volume 4, No. 8, May 1991, estimates that New South Wales will be $1.2 billion in the red. The government's response to the economic environment is contained in the important strategies outlined by the government in respect of manufacturing industry and through its economic, social and legal reforms as well as the long list of Bills the government is putting through Parliament. It will be contained also in the basic economic parameters and framework for the future that will be outlined in the Premier's June statement. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1657 The 1984 amendment to the Constitution, which was enthusiastically supported by the opposition, was designed specifically to protect the governments and people of Victoria. It acknowledged that governments, because of the need to pursue long-term strategies, to make hard decisions and to grapple with difficult economic times, need stability and time to pursue their policies. The amendment was made in the interests of good government and stability. The government has great achievements to its credit. It has long-term strategies and plans and is not prepared to tear up the 1984 amendment because at the moment the government is in a trough in the cyclical swings of popularity and so advantage an opposition in which the government has no confidence. Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - It is unfortunate that what happens in this place does not necessarily impact directly on the people of Victoria. Even more unfortunate is that what happens to the people of Victoria obviously does not impact on the decisions that are taken from time to time in this place. Certainly in respect of the matter honourable members are debating today, the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill, the people of Victoria are playing second fiddle, especially when one considers the points addressed by members of the government in their comments on the Bill. The people of Victoria simply are not being considered. They are out there and honourable members in these hallowed cloisters do not always recognise and remember and keep in mind the interests of the people of Victoria. As I said, they are out there - driving trams, shopping, taking children to and from school, farming, trying to payoff mortgages, and trying to make a living. We should be giving consideration to the people of Victoria when we discuss this important Bill. While the people are out there trying to make a living, they are surrounded by a pall of concern, of anxiety, and of gloom that is present throughout the State. If one goes into rural areas or into metropolitan areas, or if one speaks to workers or professional people or to people trying to deliver services and especially if one goes to parents who are concerned about their children, one finds a sense of anxiety and concern. What has happened to the State of Victoria? Why are the people so concerned? Why are they so anxious? What is the problem? Honourable members should consider quickly just what the people of Victoria are worried about. They know that unemployment in this State is at 10 per cent, the highest level for years. They know that youth unemployment is at 25 per cent and that rural - Hon. Licia Kokocinski - We know; we are trying to solve the problems; what would you do about them - nothing! Hon. M. T. TEHAN - You know? The major concerns of the people are those I have listed. Nearly every family in this State has someone directly unemployed as a result of the economic mismanagement of this government over recent years. They know what it is to have young teenage children who get up every morning thinking, "Is it worth CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1658 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 making an effort to try to find a job in the State of Victoria; is it worth standing in a queue to try to get a job?" McDonalds Family Restaurants advertised one job in a small advertisement in a suburban newspaper. Hundreds of young people applied for that one job available in the Greensborough area, although they knew they did not have a hope. Young people are asking themselves, "Is it worth going along; is it worth trying to find a job, or should I just give up?" The people of Victoria know that the State is in the worst recession it has ever experienced. Despite what the Premier said, I do not think it is using too strong a word to describe the current situation as Senator Peter Walsh described it: Victoria is in a "depression". The depression is far worse in Victoria than it is in any other State in Australia because over the past six or seven years the government has absolutely squandered and wasted the State's great manufacturing base, the great resources of the State and the great financial strength of this State. The people know it. They do not have to be told by Moody's Investors Service !nc.which over two consecutive terms has downgraded the State of Victoria. Australian Ratings Pty Ltd also has downgraded the State of Victoria. The downgrading results not only in a diminution of the financial status of Victoria, but also it means the State must make considerably increased payments on the interest due and interest rates charged. This morning the Herald-Sun has as a heading for its editorial, "The mood of depression" and that refers to the consequences of the downgrading by Moody's Investors Service announced today. The people of Victoria know that the State debt is $28 ()()() million. Of all the taxes and charges the government is levying, 25 per cent goes on paying interest alone, and not on repaying or reducing the State debt. The people of Victoria know that the institutions they valued, respected and held dear - such as State Bank Victoria - have been lost by this government; they have been sold or have just gone because of this government. The people of Victoria do not know the niceties but they know the implications of the losses incurred by the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, and State Bank Victoria. They know what is the effect of the State debt and they know what a depression is. The people of Victoria know also what is the effect of huge unemployment levels. They know that there cannot be any improvement to the situation until there is a change of government. They know it as intrinsically as honourable members know it here: there cannot be any change in the psyche, there cannot be any change in the management, there cannot be any change in the union domination of the State, there cannot be any lifting of the anxious concern, until there is ·a change of government. The Bill gives the government an opportunity of introducing change. Honourable members are restricted in the way that we can comply with the people's will and address the people's problems and the people's concerns because of the amendments made in 1985 to the Constitution. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1659 The amendments were introduced with goodwill in a period of stable government. As Mr Hallam said, at that time the amendments were acceptable. No-one could foresee that circumstances would change as dramatically in a period of six years as they have changed in the State of Victoria between 1985 and 1991. Now, in a most responsible manner, the opposition is introducing a simple amendment to the Constitution. It will give the government the opportunity of considering the benefits to the State that would come from conducting an election resulting in a change of government. It is an opportunity to do something and, as Mr Knowles said, until now the government has been able to say, "We cannot make a change; we cannot bring on an election nor will we" but by the passage of the Bill in this House, and hopefully in the Lower House, that "We cannot" will be removed and then it will be a matter of whether or not the government will. It is a simple Bill, and the people understand it. They understand that we are amending the Constitution to give the government an opportunity of considering the matters I have outlined that are of day-to-day concern to the government. Mr Theophanous said he did not think the people wanted a change of government. I just wonder in what circles he moves. I move in health circles, in rural circles and among young people. I move in a variety of circles and I would say the most constant theme that comes through to me in any conversation I have with anyone in those groups of people is: when are you going to get rid of this lot? It is the first thing people say to me. They walk up to me, shake my hand and say, "When are you going to get rid of them?" The people know Victoria has no hope of ever recovering its position as a stable, financial capital and a decent place to live until there is a change of government. No matter how good its intentions and how hard it tries unfortunately the psyche is set; the confidence is gone and there will be no opportunity for improvement until people can express their will of what is in the best interests of the State. In many ways I am glad that people do not know what goes on in here because they would have been shocked if they could have heard the terminology used today by the government in considering the Bill. It used the word "stunt" and "gimmick" when the opposition is trying to articulate to the Parliament what people are thinking, yet the government is dismissing the Bill as a stunt and a gimmick. Hon. B. E. Davidson interjected. Hon. M. T. TEHAN - You are not on the same wavelength as the people you support or purport to represent. You do not know how seriously they are suffering, how deep their anxiety level and the depth of their lack of confidence. You should not dismiss it as a stunt and a gimmick. The government says there should be opportunity for change, and Mr White referred to it as a football game and said that we were going into the third quarter. The people out there with unemployed children, those with mortgages to pay and those standing in dole CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1660 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 queues would be askance if they thought Parliament was considering the Bill as a football match. It is as well that they do not know. Then Mr Ives referred to monuments and to the opposition's monument. I agree there is a monument to Jeff Kennett, and it is the knitting mill which has employed five people. It is not many, but five people in the town of Seymour is a good record as against every single policy the government has introduced over five years resulting in a fall-off in the number of people employed. I would like to examine the government's monuments. They are record unemployment levels, record debt, a depression of the first and worst order. Honourable members interjecting. The PRESIDENT - Order! Earlier I referred to the fact today that the barrage of interjections makes it impoSSible for the speaker to be heard. Interjections are out of order. Hon. M. T. TEHAN - I will conclude with some of the monuments, as Mr Ives described them. The monuments of this government are: the VEDC, the VIC, record unemployment levels, the depression which is as bad as any we have had since the war, the Moody's consecutive downgradings of our rating, the debt, and the sale of the State Bank. These are the monuments left by the government and these are the monuments about which Victorians are concerned. I beg members of the government to give consideration to the people of Victoria and to seriously take into account what Victorians want and join with the opposition in enabling the government to free up the Constitution and allow a new start for the people of Victoria. We cannot afford the luxury of a continuation for a full four-year term of what has been one of the most if not the most disastrous governments the State has ever seen. We are acting responsibly in introducing a Bill to allow the government to do the right thing and heed the wishes of the Victorian people. Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong) - This is a most unusual form of debate, and a most unusual private member's Bill. It is the most unusual one I have ever seen placed before the House. Mrs Tehan said the debate had been given a range of descriptions. I will now give her another one: I believe it is a farce. The Bill is an absolute farce because the opposition knows only too well that it has no hope whatsoever of going through the lower House. Hon. M. T. Tehan - What a cynical approach! Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - No two government members will cross the floor and vote for the Bill and you know that as well as I do. Even members of your party who have a free vote do not do it. How often do they cross the floor? For example, a number of Liberal Party members, in a debate on the Accident Compensation (Amendment) Bill, told the physiotherapists that they supported them in CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1661 an amendment they required but when it came to a vote, even though some opposition members wrote to them and said they would support them - and we saw letters from Mr Baxter and Mr Hallam and others - when it came to Parliament, and when it came to the crunch they did not do the right thing, yet the opposition thinks the Labor Party will vote for a farcical Bill such as this. H the Labor Party were inclined to go to the people it could do so without the opposition; it could produce its own Bill, it does not need the opposition to do it. This is just a stupid suggestion. Hon. M. T. Tehan interjected. The PRESIDENT - Order! Mrs Tehan has just had an opportunity to speak. She should allow her successor to do the same. Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - I don't mind, my hearing aid is turned off, I will just plough on regardless! Hon. R. A. Best - You won't take offence at anything I say? Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - I can lip-read, Mr Best! It is a farce because there is no way the government will vote for the Bill and nor should it because the Bill goes against the Constitution which made four-year terms for a very good reason. The four-year term was supported by many opposition members. I have been in Parliament long enough to see the difference between three-year terms and four-year terms, and as an incoming government three years is hardly enough time to get going. By the time you get your policies operating and by the time you understand your department, three years has passed and you are ready to fight another election, and that is destabilising. The four-year term has stabilised government, and the coalition will reap the benefit of four-year terms if it gains office after an election, and anyone who has been in government knows that. . Every opposition member has said that the people are demanding an election but when one asks about proof opposition members can refer only to the opinion polls. Is the opposition honestly saying that the government should go to the polls every time the opinion polls - which are generally based on a sample of 2000 people - turn against the government? It would have to be joking if it is suggesting that. Hon. K. M. Smith -It is not just the polls! Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - What worries me and the people out in the community - and yes, Mrs Tehan, I am listening to what the people out there are saying - is that they are saying they want a change of government but they do not know what the alternatives are; they do not know anything about the opposition. It has recently changed its Leader and its shadow Cabinet and the community does not know what it is about; it does not know who is going to be in charge. It has 22 Ministers CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1662 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 and the Constitution only calls for 18; who are the 4 who are going to miss out? There is confusion out there. What are its policies? Some members of the opposition have high profiles. Mrs Tehan is well known in my electorate and I think Mr Hallam has been heard of, as has Mr Birrell, but with all due respect to the others, they have not been heard of. Oppositions have a very important role to play and a great responsibility. A similar thing occurred in 1981 when people were saying things like they are saying to Mrs Tehan at the moment. At that time people were saying to me, "When are you going to get rid of this mob?" Now we have gone the full cycle. The difference between 1981 and 1991 is that in 1981 Victoria had an opposition that was prepared for government. It had an opposition and a shadow Cabinet that worked for three years in the same portfolios; it had a grasp of where it was going and formulated policies based on what the portfolios were all about. The people of Victoria knew the opposition. It did not win government by default; it won because it was an alternative government and looked an alternative government. If the opposition wins government at the next election it will win it by default if it does not pull its socks up and look like an alternative government. There is no way that the opposition can tell me that it looks like an alternative government. Assuming that there are two defectors from the government benches and the legislation is passed by the other House, the earliest in that sequence of events that Victoria can have a change of government is in July. Can the opposition honestly tell me it is prepared to lead the people of Victoria in July? Honourable Members - Yes! Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - I have not seen any evidence of it, and, more importantly, the people of Victoria have not seen any evidence of it. The opposition needs to think through what it is saying. The only policies the government has heard from the opposition to date have been total disasters. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kennett, came down to Ceelong the week after he went through the Lazarus-type resurrection; 500 people in Geelong came to hear the new Messiah and what he had to say and they heard nothing. Everybody cheered and it sounded all right but all he said was that Geelong had to stand on its own two feet. It was real Danny Johnston stuff; I think Danny Johnston must write his scripts for him. It all sounds great but, when one goes through it, there is nothing there. I turn now to the industrial relations policy of the opposition, the nine point-plan. Hon. B. A. Chamberlain -It's a winner! Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - Mr Chamberlain says it is a winner. After ten years of implementation it might be, but what will it cause in the meantime? What cost to the community and what divisiveness will it cause to reach that point? It will be like the great wins that Mr Bjelke-Petersen had over the unions in Queensland and look what happened to him. Think of the cost. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1663 The opposition talks about this wasteful government. Let us talk about the cost of some of the opposition's policies. What about the 3500 public servants who are going to lose their jobs in July when the opposition wins government? The unemployment figures will increase for a start. It will take away a lot of expertise that will take years to be replaced and the Public Service will not be able to provide services to the public. That is an enormous cost. Everything the opposition is saying is going to cost. The government wants to know what it is going to do to save money, what are its alternatives? Now that it has its resurrected Leader and its 22 frontbenchers, it is the duty of the opposition to tell the people of Victoria what it is going to do. The opposition cannot tell me it can do that by July; it cannot tell me it is ready to tell the people where it is going. It needs the twelve or eighteen months that are left - if it has any sense - and it owes it to the people of Victoria. The opposition might be able to prove through opinion polls that a large number of people want a change of government, but that always happens. Governments generally run their course after ten or twelve years anyway, even in ordinary circumstances. After that time it is time to change governments under the Westminster system. Victorians saw the disadvantages of long-term governments when the previous Liberal government was in power for 27 years. I have always maintained that governments under the Westminster system should change after ten or fifteen years. It is a natural progression of things and a healthy situation in a democratic society. When governments change it is the responsibility of oppositions to take over that role and be prepared for it. The people of Victoria are concerned that the opposition is not doing its homework, that it is not prepared, and it will need twelve months to get into the position that this Labor government was in in 1981. It is a lot of hard work and the opposition is not doing it. Mr Birrell said at the outset of his remarks that he has no philosophical concern about this Bill. I certainly do. I believe governments should run their full term of office and I feel very strongly about it. Members of Lower Houses are elected by the people and they should serve their term; they have that right. In that time oppositions have the responsibility to look towards becoming an alternative government. I do not support this Bill. It is sad in a way that the opposition is bringing in a measure like this when there is so much to do. There is so much this Parliament could do to restore confidence in the people of Victoria. There is no doubt that confidence is at its lowest ebb. As Mrs Tehan rightly pointed out, the unemployment figures are horrific; they are similar to what they were in 1981. It is all very well to say what a terrible thing it is and to blame the government of the day. That is fair enough. Let us see what alternatives the opposition offers. Let us see what programs it is going to put up. Let us see if it can suggest to the government within the forum of this House any concrete proposals that will help those people who are unemployed. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1664 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 It is not much good sitting on the desk and saying, "Tsk tsk, what a terrible thing." If one reads Hansard of 1980 and 1981 one will find that the opposition of the day was offering alternative policies and suggestions to the government. In fact, some of the suggestions were taken up by the government of the day. What I am suggesting to the opposition is that, rather than carrying on with this sort of farcical piece of legislation for cheap political point-scoring exercises, it ought to be putting forward something concrete, so we can have a proper debate here. I want to hear some suggestions about what the opposition wants to do about unemployment, our transport system and so on; I know Mr Best wants to bring down the petrol prices. Let us have some good debate and spend our Wednesday afternoons trying to give the people of Victoria some respect for this place and the people in it. This opposition has a golden opportunity: I do not think an opposition has ever been in the situation that this opposition is in. I do not know of any other time, certainly not in my lifetime, where the result of the next election has pretty well been known eighteen months beforehand. That places an enormous responsibility on the opposition; out in the electorate the fact that the result is known and expected is leading to a great deal of instability because everyone is marking time. Everybody is marking time for two reasons: they are waiting to see what the opposition is going to do and what its policies are. An honourable member interjected. Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - The people out there are not worried about who is in opposition, so long as they know what its policies are. Even if they do not know what it is proposing to do, at least if they know what to expect if the opposition becomes the government and what is going to occur, they can then plan and carry out their duties responsibly. The opposition now has a responsibility that has never before been placed on an opposition. I challenge the opposition to come out and give the people its policies and get its act together because it will be possibly in government in a relatively short time, but not through farcical legislation like this. Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - Mr Mackenzie really got to the nub of this debate when he said that the community is waiting. It is waiting for a change of government, and the people in the community are not making any decisions for investment or creating employment until the government changes. This Bill is designed to give the government of the day - the Kirner government, in fact - the opportunity to call an election before next November. Mr Mackenzie gave us his extraordinary proposition that in 1981 a series of credible policies were outlined by the then Labor opposition which have now been implemented, and that that is what this opposition has to do: spell out its policies. We are happy to do that. As each debate is called on, we spell out our attitude to each issue. However, I remind Mr Mackenzie that it is the policies to which he referred that have destroyed the institutions of this State. The policies that he is lauding and saying are so CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1665 great and so well thought-out have led to the loss of the State Bank. The government has made our economy so fragile that Victoria is now the greatest casualty of the current depression. So, do not give me talk of the policies of 1981 which were so good for the State of Victoria! There have been some extraordinary descriptions of the Bill now before the House. We have been told it is an attack on the rule of law. We are told it is a Bill to undermine the Constitution. It is none of those things. It is a Bill to change the Constitution. Every day we deal with Bills to change Acts of Parliament. This is a Bill to change the Constitution of Victoria. Is this the first time that has happened in recent years? I suggest honourable members examine the schedule to the Constitution Act, which shows that between 1982 and 1987 there were 26 individual Acts of Parliament changing the Constitution of this State. We do it on a regular basis, and what we are now doing is debating in a democratic way a proposal to change the Constitution yet again. It is true that in 1984 we supported the concept of four-year Parliamentary terms with a minimum of three years. Mr Storey was the opposition spokesman at the time, and it is a pity someone did not read what he said in this House on 3 May 1984, when the Bill was introduced. He said: The opposition supports the Bill...it provides an opportunity for governments to carry out their program over a reasonable period of time. But he also said: It also provides for more stability ... So that is the rationale for the 1984 Bill when it came into operation in 1984. It was to provide more stability. Let us consider that stability just since 1988. Hon. B. E. Davidson - Did you support it? Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN - Yes, I did. I did not speak on the Bill, but I was there for the appropriate division or debate. Let us consider what has happened since 1988. What happened to Mr Jolly, the then Treasurer of Victoria, the man who, with"Dr Sheehan and with every other member of the Cabinet, set out the economic path of this State that has led us to the current unemployment rate of more than 10 per cent, which is still rising? Where is Mr Jolly? He is no longer with us as a Minister. If you ask him, he does not know why he is not still the Treasurer; he does not think he has done anything wrong. There are some backroom boys who have very much contributed to his demise. We had Mr Walker, the then Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. He was here in 1988 as a Minister. Where is he now? Why is he not a Minister? The reason he is not a Minister is that the factions could not deliver to Mr Cain the split-up of the spoils of office, and so Mr Walker said, "Well, look, I'll stand aside to try to resolve the impasse". As we know, it solved nothing. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1666 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 This has happened only since 1988. Then we had Mr Rowe, former Minister for Agriculture. What did he call himself? He called himself the Premier of the bush. He was the man who was injudicious enough to tell the truth and say that Premier Kimer was finished as Leader. Where is he? This is instability, yet this is the result of the legislation designed to give stability. We got rid of Mr Jolly, Mr Walker, and Mr Rowe. What about Mr Cain, the former Premier, the man who took the advice of Mr Crabb - the present Minister for Conservation and Environment - and went early for the last election in 1988? He knew that all the information about the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) and State Bank Victoria and all the stuff that was going on would come out. Therefore, he said, ''Let's defraud the people. Let's get to the people before they find out about all these things". Why is he no longer Premier in this listable" government? He is not Premier because he was white-anted by Mr Crabb. On the one hand, Mr Cain was saying he wanted loyalty and, on the other hand, Mr Crabb was having press conferences saying, "l will be ready when Mr Cain wants to retire". Another major reason why Mr Cain is not there is that he was unable to control the factions. It is a pity that Mr Crawford is not here today. Mr Crawford, who proved to be the great power broker in this Parliament in the recent preselections -- Hon. W. A. Landeryou interjected. Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN - He did some good deals. He got with your group. You did a deal - the centre unity with the socialist left written all over it. Hon. W. A. Landeryou interjected. Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN - You were overseas, I think. What about Mr Fordham, the honourable member for Footscray in another place? This is the stable government! We passed the legislation in 1984 to give us stability. We got rid of Mr Jolly, Mr Walker, Mr Rowe and Mr Cain. What about Mr Fordham, who was No. 2 in the government? Where is he? He was part of this same team. Why is Mr Walsh still not in the Ministry? Of course, Mr Fordham was guilty of or responsible for losing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars through not supervising the VEDC, and so were all his Cabinet colleagues. Mr Mackenzie was part of this. He was sitting around the Cabinet table and making decisions about issues which are now adversely affecting the State of Victoria. Then we got rid of Mr Walsh. Only since 1988, we have got rid of Mr Walsh, Mr Cain, Mr Fordham, Mr Rowe, Mr Jolly and Mr Walker. And that is stable government! That is what the legislation was supposed to be all about! CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1667 The opposition supported the legislation because it was supposed to be a guarantee of stability, but the opposite has been the case. For that reason alone Parliament should support the Bill put forward by the opposition. Mr Hallam dealt with the question of the interest swap where the Treasurer acted illegally. Victoria's credit rating has been downgraded twice. The State is burdened with debt. How do members of the government explain those problems to their children and grandchildren? How do they face them across the table in the morning and explain why unemployment is getting worse, why there is no investment in Victoria and why Victorians are the constant butt of jokes? What did the government do with State Bank Victoria? I was six months old when my first account was opened with the State Bank. Where is it now? The government not only sold the State Bank; it gave it away and ended up with a debt of $700 million! That is the action of a supposedly stable government that will guide Victoria into the next decade! Last year I was in London and read about Victoria in the Financial Times. Victoria was referred to as the"debt-ridden provincial government of Australia". What an assessment of the government's performance! What about Mr Keating, the Federal Treasurer? He has blamed Victoria for being the principal ingredient of the country's economic problems. He blames the Victorian government and those members of it who have sat around and done nothing. Like most Labor Party politicians he is looking for a scapegoat, but that is the situation. Victoria's major problem is that the government is unable to make decisions without the approval of the Trades Hall Council. Mr Halfpenny has to agree to every major decision. The Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development is clearly on the record as wanting to sell Loy Yang power station. He knows it must be sold, as does Mr Landeryou, every reasonable economic commentator and the State Electricity Commission. However, Mr Halfpenny will not let it be sold so it as not been. All Victorians are being punished because of that. The Bill is designed to give the people of Victoria the opportunity of having their say. The Bill changes the Constitution in a perfectly legitimate and democratic way and I am sure the House will give it its wholehearted support. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) - The Bill amends the Constitution Act 1975. I should have thought that the circumstances leading to an amendment to the Constitution would be exceptional indeed. Constitutions are almost sacrosanct. The Federal Constitution is a lot harder to amend than the State Constitution; nevertheless, Victoria's Constitution is the rule book by which our behaviour is governed. In 1984 everyone agreed that governments should have four-year terms. The Leader of the Opposition went further and said he would have preferred five-year terms, and certainly four-year fixed terms. What has brought us to the stage where the opposition wants to amend the Constitution? This is just another cheap publicity stunt in a long line of cheap stunts orchestrated by Jeffrey Kennett, the Leader of the Opposition. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1668 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 It is true that the Leader of the Opposition owns an advertising agency that has all the credibility his profession can muster. He has come to Parliament with a well-orchestrated stunt to change the Constitution. The Bill must be seen in the context of Mr Kennett's other publicity seeking, self-aggrandisement schemes, because that is what it is. On the first day he was re-elected to the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Jeff Kennett said, "I have changed; I am a man of substance; the Jeff Kennett of old has gone". I look forward to seeing some policies, and I look forward to seeing a changed Jeff Kennett. On the first day of his re-election to the leadership Jeff Kennett contrived to be at radio station 3AW, his former employer, at the same time as the Premier. His first contrived publicity stunt was to say to the Premier, "I won't talk to you until you resign and call an election". That was publicity stunt No. 1. Hon. K. M. Smith -It sounded good, though. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON -It got him on the front page, which was what he wanted. The Leader of the Opposition then decided that another way of collecting publicity for himself was to organise mass rallies. He was going to march up Bourke Street and stand on the front steps of Parliament House. However, before he did that he thought he had better test the water so he nicked down to Geelong, which has been having a rough time of late. He thought it would not be hard to stir up a crowd of people who were not happy, so off he went to Geelong with his party faithful. Depending on whom one listens to, he got a crowd of 500 or 1500. The crowd probably numbered 500 with 200 people being party faithful! Having dipped his toe in that water, the Leader of the Opposition decided he had better find another publicity stunt because that was not going to do it for him; he knew he would not get a crowd anywhere else. He could have gone to a football game and claimed the crowd was for him, but even Jef£ Kennett does not have that much front! Hon. K. M. Smith - He is not even debating the Bill; what are you talking about? Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - He has orchestrated the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition then came up with the extraordinary stunt that he would call on members of the government to cross the floor in the Lower House and vote against the Supply Bill. That was never going to happen, but for three days the Leader of the Opposition ran that line. He claimed some members of the government would cross the floor, but that was a load of garbage. He wanted only to get his head on television. The Leader of the Opposition has now come up with this stunt. A great American President once said that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and Richard Nixon added, "No, you have to keep changing it around a bit". Mr Kennett has learnt that and he has come up with another stunt. He is trying to fiddle the Constitution. Honourable members have heard today the supposed justification for the opposition wanting to change the Constitution. It is because the State is in a bad way and the CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1669 opposition cannot afford to wait to get at it to fix it up. What about the substance? I do not often agree with Mr Mackenzie, but he said he was waiting to hear policies. If a party goes to the extraordinary lengths of changing the Constitution, surely it must have a stronger position than simply stating it will wait until it gets into government to determine what it will do. The opposition does not have a policy. It is just flim-flam. Let us consider the opposition's argument. I have a list of professions based on perceived credibility. The people at the top of the list are pharmacists, doctors, dentists and schoolteachers - the people you want to get rid of - Hon. K. M. Smith - Who wants to get rid of schoolteachers? Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - You are going to cut education money! These people have the credibility of the community. You can believe them. At the bottom of the list are car salesmen and just above that are advertising people. They have consistently been there from 1976 to 1990. Hon. K. M. Smith - Where are the Labor Party politicians? Don't they get a mention? Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - They are fairly high on the list. I am sure the opposition would be happy to know that State members of Parliament are just below Federal members of Parliament amd above political journalists. The second lowest of all are the paid liars, the people with no credibility at all: advertising agents. What about the credibililty of the man who has conceived the brilliant plan of altering the Constitution, Mr Jeffrey '''Glib'' Kennett? What about his credibility? The Bible says, "By his friends shall ye know him". Let us see what his friends thought of him. He replaced Lindsay Thomson, the then Premier and Leader of the Liberal Party in October 1982. The first challenge to Mr Kennett's leadership came in 1985, so a substantial number of people in his own party did not think he had any credibility. He managed to survive that one -- Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) -On a point of order, Mr President, the point being relevance, I suppose the argument is that this Bill would facilitate the election of somebody Mr Davidson does not approve of, but he seems to be fairly remote from expressing disapproval as he goes tediously and repetitively through a recitation of dubiously relevant history. I suggest it is not relevant. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) -On the point of order, Mr President, I am trying to establish the credibility of the people who seek to change the Constitution. In examining the people who orchestrated the change in the Constitution, it is relevant to examine the reasons for doing it. If we question the reasons being put forward we have to put forward another reason. I am suggesting that the people who orchestrated the change are relevant to the debate. The PRESIDENT - Order! On the point of order, before it was taken I was wondering about the relevance and thinking that the debate had degenerated into a slanging match by each side against the other. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1670 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Hon. W. A. Landeryou - That is how it started off! The PRESIDENT - Order! There were grounds at the beginning but it seems to have got worse as it goes on and there has been little that is of relevance to the Bill. What is occurring is a reiteration of facts that were brought out at previous stages of the debate. The honourable member says he is dealing with the credibility and motives of those who brought the Bill forward, and that is relevant to the debate. The general credibility of the individual does not seem to me to be relevant to the debate. I ask the honourable member to make his remarks relevant in some way to the Bill. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The obvious motive of the orchestrator of the Bill is self-aggrandisement and publicity. He thinks that if you lack substance and have no policies you have to change the rules. I have suggested to the House that the people in his own party have also questioned his motives at odd times and thought he probably was not worthy of cutting the mustard. His party replaced him at one stage, only to find that his replacement was not much chop either so he was put back. That reflects on the party itself. Let us consider what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the last unsuccessful attempt to change the Constitution. Hon. J. V. C. Guest - We have heard that three times! Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - That must be what you came back for. In Hansard on 3 May 1984 at page 4349 the Leader of the Opposition said: I have been in favour of extending the terms of Parliament and I hold the view that terms of five years are better than terms of four years because of the ability it gives governments of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, to make changes and see those changes come to fruition from year to year. He goes on to say: The opposition has agreed to an extended term of four years, but it has gone further and said that it is better to have fixed terms within that component. We have collectively settled on three years, except that in extraordinary circumstances Parliament, regardless of the political party in government, will have to sit for three years but will have flexibility in the last twelve months to exercise the opportunity of going to the people earlier than the four-year term and to undertake simultaneous elections. That provides a degree of security that did not exist previously. It is a substantial advancement on the current situation. It is the result of work from the opposition side of the House. It is to the government's credit that it accepted the concept. We still accept it. He really thought he was on about removing the degree of flexibility the Premier of the day had to call an election. In that context he thought it was a good idea. I put it to the House that he did not really believe what he said then. It was expedient at the time because it was just part of what he wanted to get across. He is an advertising agent and his motives are those of advertising agents. He has no credibility. He accepts money for telling lies about people's products. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1671 Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - On a point of order, Mr President, the aspersion that has been cast upon the Leader of the Opposition in another place cannot be sustained. I ask Mr Davidson to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT - Order! I uphold the point of order. It is not permissible to make reflections of that type upon a member of another place. I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) - I withdraw the comment that Mr Kennett is a professional liar. I say he collects money for what he does. Hon. K. M. Smith - You called him a liar! Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I did not. Hon. K. M. Smith - It will be in Hansard!. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Do you maintain that he tells the truth? Hon. K. M. Smith - Withdraw! Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Do you maintain that he tells the truth? What do you want me to withdraw? The PRESIDENT - Order! Perhaps I should make it clear. The statement directly referred to by Mrs Varty was that the Leader of the Opposition in another place accepts money for telling lies about people's products. I understand Mr Davidson to have withdrawn that. Is that correct? Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I withdrew the comment that he is a professional liar. The PRESIDENT - Order! The other point was the use of the words "professional liar". He has withdrawn that. I asked Mr Davidson expressly to withdraw the imputation that the Leader of the Opposition accepts money for telling lies about other people's products. He is not entitled to make that imputation. It is unparliamentary language. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I withdraw the point that he accepts money for telling lies about other people's products. We now have it maintained very stoutly by the opposition that Mr Kennett always tells the truth in every circumstance. Is that right - as an advertising agent? Hon. W. A. Landeryou - Not one of them said yes. Hon. Haddon Storey - You're making the speech. Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Why does he then need to fiddle with the Constitution? Does he always tell the truth or doesn't he? Hon. R. M. Ha11am - Do you always tell the truth? Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - He always tells the truth! Hon. R. M. Ha11am - Do you always tell the truth? CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1672 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I would like to quote from an article that appeared in the Southern Peninsula Mail of 9 May 1991, after Mr Kennett became the Leader of the Opposition. I assume he was telling the truth on that night because he was addressing a local Mornington Rotary Club dinner. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying: I believe the basic fabric of this society is magnificent .,. Our major problems are attitudinal problems. I am supremely confident about the future. It isn't that bad. It's tough, and it's a huge challenge and some are going through tough times. But however you feel about the state of things it is nothing more than a challenge. He says it isn't that bad and yet he has to fiddle with the Constitution of the State. What a load of rubbish! I put to the House that the motives of the Leader of the Opposition in fiddling with the Constitution of Victoria are nothing more than political flim-flam. The Bill is publicity driven, it is a load of garbage and is not even recycled garbage. I reject it utterly. Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - This is a simple Bill which performs a perfectly legitimate function in reforming the Constitution. Speakers from the government side have been notable for their attempts to divert attention from the simple issue involved and the simple fact that it is a facilitating Bill. It is surprising that in all the tired cliches and rhetoric we have heard from the government we have not heard the accusation that we are born to rule. I think it is because government morale is such that government members now believe that they and their children and grandchildren will see that the Liberal and National parties are born to rule - that will be their opinion by the time we have been re-elected. Their morale is so low they cannot honestly defend the record of the government. During the diversion engaged in by the Leader of the House in reciting a whole lot of company names the only one he omitted that is going to be significant in 1991 was David White Outplacements Pty Ltd -- that will get big business. The "tedious repetition" referred to in the Standing Orders appears to apply only to individual speakers and while we have had a fair dose of that today from the government benches I have to say that it occurs to me it could be applied to repetition of what other speakers have said. I propose simply to draw attention to features of the law as it stands now to give context to the amendment to the Constitution which we are attempting. As most of us here were involved in the last substantial amendment to the Constitution, which amended section 8 of the Constitution Act, those of us who have thought about it over recent years have supposed that the kinds of Appropriation and Supply Bills that the government introduces are not such as to qualify on the criterion of being for the ordinary annual services of the government only as dealt with in that section. We have supposed that that is so because the Bills that we are used to in Parliament have always included, as provided in section 8(4), provision for: CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1673 (a) the construction or acquisition of public works land or bUildings; (b) the construction or acquisition of plant or equipment which normally would be regarded as involving an expenditure of capital; '" (d) appropriations for or relating to the Parliament. Paragraph (c) speaks of appropriations for services proposed to be provided by the government which have not formerly been provided by the government. That is one exception to the rule that the Supply Bill at this time of the year and the Appropriation Bills in the spring sessional period follow the same pattern. The Supply Bill is one which does not contain a provision for new policies. My point is that we have supposed that because such provisions are contained in a Supply Bill or an Appropriation Bill it therefore cannot be a Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government only. I point out that subsection (4) of section 8 of the Constitution Act says: In sub-section (3)(c) a reference to a Bill dealing only with the appropriation of the Consolidated Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government is a reference to a Bill which deals only with the appropriation of the Consolidated Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government for a particular year only but does not include a Bill to appropriate moneys for - I have already quoted from subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) - that is, it does not include a Bill to appropriate moneys for the purposes mentioned. Respectable legal opinion would be available to the government - if it sought it - that the Supply Bill now before the House is not a Bill to appropriate moneys for the construction or acquisition of public works, land or buildings and is not a Bill to appropriate moneys for appropriation for or relating to the Parliament. In other words, the sole question is whether it is in the ordinary sense a Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government only. Again I put it that respectable legal opinion would say it is such a Bill. If that is the case and if the Premier on the blocking of such a Bill were to go the Governor and say, "It is now the time for an election, issue the writs, here is a legal opinion which says it is now possible to go to election" who can doubt that the Governor would accept the advice of the Premier? What we are doing by passing this Bill is simply making clear a position that would probably prevail anyway should an event happen which none of us would wish to happen. It is a Bill that would be regarded as facilitating what the government ought to have in mind and ought to intend for the people of Victoria. It is a Bill for ensuring that in no circumstances if there is a crisis or an impasse can the government say that there is any reason for the chaos which the government would no doubt attempt to bring about rather than lose its tenuous hold on office. -It is therefore very important to pass this Bill, not just to ensure that the real objects of the 1984 amendments are carried out, but so that this State may enjoy stability, continuity of policy and a government with a mandate to carry out effective policies for the State for some years when confidence is low. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL y) BILL 1674 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 There is no excuse for chaos or an irresponsible throwing up of the hands and saying, liNo answer is possible for the State". There is an answer, and in any event there will certainly be an answer for the needs of the State if we pass the Bill. It is simply a facilitating Bill and on that basis it ought to be supported. The PRESIDENT - Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, I advert to a remark made by Mr Guest. He referred to the Standing Order relating to tedious repetition. If he were to examine the current edition of May at page 293 he would find that tedious repetition relates not only to repetition of one's own argument but also the arguments of previous speakers. Hon.J. V. C. Guest-Good! The PRESIDENT - Order! I want to make that clear. I think all honourable members will agree that today there has been a considerable amount of such repetition. The point I make is that if points are taken, they certainly will be ruled out of order. Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - Mr President, my contribution will not be repetitious or tedious although I will continue to say, as I have done many times, that if this government would do the right thing by the people of Victoria, and go down to see the Governor and resign it would be the greatest thing that could possibly happen for Victoria. The House has before it a simple single sheet of paper. It asks for a change to be made to the Constitution. That simple change would allow the government the opportunity of going to the Governor and resigning. It is important that the government realises the Bill is not a farce or a stunt; it is not done for publicity. We have introduced the Bill to allow the government to resign in a simple form. I wish it would do that, and do it quickly! Today we have seen probably the most shameful proceedings of this House because of the arguments put by the people opposite as to why the Bill should not be allowed to pass. I have heard in past years about the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, and about how, when he has no argument, he tips the bucket on people. Today we saw a classic example of that. He did not have one proper argument about why the Bill should not be passed and why the government should not support it. The Premier in the other place, Joan Kimer, has said, "We cannot go to the Governor because the Constitution does not allow it". This single sheet of paper comprising the Bill will allow that to happen. That should be allowed to happen because the people out there in the streets of Melbourne and throughout Victoria are crying out for that to happen. They are sick and tired of what the government is doing to them. The people are tired of the losses and of the millstone placed around their necks by the government during the past eight or nine years. I need refer to only a couple of millstones: the huge State debt caused by the losses of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and the loss of State Bank Victoria. The coalition government will have to find $700 million. It will not be up to you miserable lot, you will not have to find it! CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1675 What about the huge liabilities under WorkCare? The coalition government will have to meet that. Not you over there, you won't be here! You will be the disgraced public servants who will be sitting outside this building! Remember the losses caused by the people in this House because of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd - you have allowed that disgrace! The losses associated with the Victorian Investment Corporation and Pyramid Building Society must not be forgotten. What about the Deputy Premier and the huge losses he caused because of the scratch tickets -what have you done with them? Who will be the next Premier of Victoria? All day you have talked about Jeff Kennett but he is an upstanding citizen. What will you lot on the other side do? No doubt you will dump Joan Kirner, the so-called saviour of this State. She has done nothing for Victoria since she has been Premier and she should be told by responsible people in this House to get out. The opposition is giving her the opportunity of getting out by introducing this Bill. The people on the other side have said it is not right and we do not have a right to make changes to the Constitution. Who introduced a Bill in 1984 to change the Constitution? You lot on the other side did that! You are trying to accuse us of not allowing anything to happen but you introduced legislation into the House to change the Constitution. We have every right to do the same thing. Remember that we are doing you and all Victorians a favour. Get out with dignity! Victoria has the highest taxes and that is only one reason why you should get out. Victoria has record bankruptcies. Think about the number of businesses that have closed in the past twelve months throughout Victoria. You need only walk down Collins Street or Bourke Street or through any shopping centre to see the shops that have closed. Look at the register of bankruptcies - the number is mounting daily. Government members do not care what happens to Victorians. What about record unemployment and the hopes of kids coming out of school? What about families whose breadwinners - husbands and wives - have been thrown out of work so that their futures are down the drain because of this government? The government should take the opportunity we are offering and support the opposition because it is the right thing for us to be doing. It is the right thing for you to take up our offer. Victoria has industrial disputation like it has never seen before. What do you do? You go to John "Half-Premier" and he makes the decisions! Hon. W. A. Landeryou - Boring! Hon. K. M. SMITH - Sit down and you can go to sleep! Victoria has the largest Public Service of any State. The government has put on 35 000 extra staff so it can say that unemployment in Victoria is down while unemployment in Victoria is actually reaching epidemic proportions. You have broken the souls of Victorians. You should be ashamed of yourselves! The opposition should not have to introduce legislation to force you to see the Governor or even to give you that opportunity because you should be going down there on your hands and knees, and begging for an election. CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL 1676 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Victorians are begging for an election and you should do the right thing. We know why people here do not want to go to an election. We know the government has 46 discredited members in the Legislative Assembly, thirteen of whom are Ministers, with another five Ministers in this House. The nitty gritty is that from a reading of the polls, the Legislative Assembly would not have one representative from the Labor Party after an election. That will be a good thing! Some of the dead wood of the Labor Party should be cleaned out, and the sooner it happens the better. What it has done to Victoria is disgraceful! Honourable members should think about those who will disappear from this House after the next election. They are the ones who are not prepared to go to the Premier and say, "Let us do the right thing, Joan, let us go to Government House, see the Governor and resign. We should do that for Victorians". Let us look at who will not be on this side of the House after the next election. Mrs Coxsedge is deserting the sinking ship. She has had enough. She cannot stand what the Labor government is doing to Victoria. Mr Crawford has decided to call it a day. Mr Kennedy, who would normally be the opposition Whip after the next election, will be flung out of Parliament with his brother. The two of them will be a good pair! The PRESIDENT - Order! On the Bill. Hon. K. M. SMITH -It is on the Bill. The PRESIDENT - Order! No it is not. Hon. K. M. SMITH - The point I make is that the honourable members whom I have mentioned should give the Premier the advice to resign. I am highlighting the fact that the Labor government members have reasons for not doing so. The Minister for Health will also go. Chelsea will be a true-blue conservative electorate. Mr Mackenzie is an apolOgist for the Labor Party. During the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill he was interjecting continuously. He says that he is an independent, but he should be honest. The government should support the Bill if it has any credibility. The government should do the right thing by the people of Victoria and resign. Honourable members opposite cannot be so insulated that they do not know that Victorians want them to get out. Surely they read the newspapers and know that the people of Victoria want an election soon and do not want to wait another eighteen months so that more millstones are placed around their necks. I ask all honourable members opposite to support the Bill and ensure that it is introduced in the Lower House so that the Premier can go to the Governor and resign. Unfortunately members of this Labor government will not do that because of their own self-interest and the self-interest of the 46 discredited Labor Party members of the Lower House, who will not allow the Bill to be introduced in that Chamber. The PRESIDENT - Order! Before I put the question, all honourable members recognise that a constitutional amendment of this kind requires an absolute majority. I will not at this stage direct that the bells be rung because it is obvious that each side will CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1677 want a division on the question in any event and whether an absolute majority exists or not will become apparent from that position. I, therefore, put the question: That the Bill be now read a second time. Hon. W. A. Landeryou - Division required. House divided on motion: Ayes, 23 Ashman,Mr Evans,Mr Miles,Mr Baxter, Mr Guest, Mr (Teller) Skeggs, Mr (Teller) Best, Mr Hall, Mr Smith,Mr Birrell, Mr Hallam,Mr Storey,Mr Chamberlain, Mr Knowles, Mr Tehan. Mrs Connard, Mr Lawson,Mr Varty,Mrs Craige, Mr Long,Mr Wright,Mr de Fegely, Mr Macey,Mr Noes, 18 Coxsedge, Mrs Kennedy, Mr Mier,Mr Crawford, Mr Kokocinski, Ms Pullen, Mr Davidson, Mr Landeryou, Mr Sgro, Mr (Teller) Henshaw,Mr Lyster, Mrs Theophanous, Mr Hogg,Mrs Mc Lean, Mrs (Teller) Van Buren, Mr Ives, Mr Mackenzie, Mr White,Mr Pair MrCox MrWalker Motion agreed to by absolute majority. Read second time. Third reading Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - By leave, I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT - Order! I am of the opinion that the third reading of the Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. I direct that the bells be rung. Bells nmg. Required number of members having assembled in Chamber: Motion agreed to by absolute majority. Read third time. TRANSPORT (CAR POOLING) BILL 1678 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 TRANSPORT (CAR POOLING) BILL Second reading Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. One of the aims of the Transport Act is to ensure the use of available transport resources in ways that are most beneficial to the community. The Bill meets that aim by making it easier for people to belong to a car pool. If honourable members consider for a moment the number of cars on our roads at any one time in which only one person is travelling, the benefits of car pooling can be readily appreciated. They include: reduced air and noise pollution; lower transport costs; easing of traffic congestion; less road wear and lower maintenance costs; and reduced demand for new roads and car parking space. There are worthwhile social benefits also in that car pooling brings people together in a spirit of cooperation. These initiatives fit in well with the recently announced central area transport study (CATS) in that they help reduce the number of cars entering the city, making that area a much more congenial place for the people. At present the Transport Act makes car pooling lawful by declaring that it does not contravene private insurance policies or the laws relating to commercial passenger vehicles. However, these benefits do not apply unless the car pool meets the following criteria: it is limited to five passengers; the arrangement is "informal"; the offer to carry passengers or the actual carriage of passengers is only incidental to the main purpose of the journey; it is not the result of touting for passengers by the driver or any other person on a road; and payment is made by sharing the costs of the journey or providing similar transport in return. The government has received a number of expressions of concern from bodies such as the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) about the uncertainty these criteria can cause in a particular case. For example, if an employer encourages car pooling among employees, perhaps by appointing a member of staff to act as a coordinator, does it become an invalid car pool because it is not "informal" ? If it is invalid, not only is it possible that the employees unwittingly forfeit their insurance cover but they may also want to claim damages from their employer for leading them astray. Therefore the Bill proposes to simplify the requirements for car pools as follows: references to an "offer" to carry passengers are omitted so as to focus on the actual carriage of passengers; the maximum number of passengers is increased from five to seven in anyone vehicle; and the requirement that the arrangement be "informal" is omitted. It should be understood that the other constraints will remain; that is, the additional passengers being carried are only incidental because the trip would have been made by the driver in any case; touting or soliciting for passengers on the road is not permitted; TRANSPORT (CAR POOLING) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1679 and the contribution made by the passengers must be limited to a share of the costs incurred in making the journey or the provision of similar transport. As the Transport Act treats certain charitable arrangements, particularly those operated by municipalities, on the same conditions as car pools, the conditions for those arrangements will be similarly modified. Several amendments were made to the Bill in the Legislative Assembly to make it clear that the payment made to the driver must not exceed the costs of the journey. For this purpose expenses such as fuel, maintenance, parking, insurance and depreciation are taken into account but the payment must not result in a profit to the driver or any other person. A further issue which was raised by the RACV and the Victorian Tourism Commission is addressed in the Bill; namely, the question of car pool matching services that are conducted for profit. This refers to a service in which a person charges a fee for introducing drivers and passengers who wish to belong to a car pool. The person is a go-between who makes a profit out of exchanging name and address information, similar to a computer dating service. The Bill requires the consent of the Roads Corporation to be obtained for the operation of such a service. The Roads Corporation will have the power to publish a general consent in the Gazette. This will enable some basic controls to be set for the safety and protection of the consumer without the need for heavy- handed bureaucracy. The consent requirements will also ensure that commercial matching services cannot be set up in such a way as to undermine bus and taxi services. This will be achieved by: preventing the operator of the service from having an interest in any vehicle used by the clients of the service; requiring that the fee charged by the matching service operator be a lump sum and unrelated to the payments made by passengers to drivers. These constraints on matching services do not apply to people who wish to form a genuine car pool. A person who drives from home to work daily, for example, is free to seek out passengers and to receive a fair payment from them as he or she thinks fit, prOVided no profit is made and there is no touting for passengers on the highway. In conclusion, the Bill prOVides the opportunity for increased use of car pools with the many benefits to the community that I have outlined. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned for Hon. W.R. BAXTER (North Eastern) on motion of Hon. R.M. Hallam. Debate adjourned until next day. AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (VICTORIA) BILL 1680 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (VICTORIA) BILL Second reading Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL This Bill marks a major development in Catholic education in Australia - the coming together of Catholic colleges of advanced education in three States and the Australian Capital Territory to form a new university. The university has already been established and is in operation. The major purpose of this Bill is to merge the Institute of Catholic Education with the university. BACKGROUND TO THE BILL . The Institute of Catholic Education was established in 1974 when four small Catholic teachers colleges - the Christian Brothers Teachers College at Box Hill, Mercy College in Ascot Vale, Aquinas College in Ballarat and Christ College in Oakleigh - were combined and the institute became a constituent college of the State College of Victoria. The Box Hill campus operated for six years. The other campuses have continued to develop and the institute has grown and broadened its profile so that by 1990 there were 1692 full and part-time students in education, 586 in health and 128 in arts, giving a total enrolment of 2067 equivalent full-time students. The institute has made a very important contribution to higher education in Victoria over the past seventeen years and its staff, students and programs are held in the highest regard. The Commonwealth White Paper on higher education in 1988 led to the establishment of the unified national system of higher education. When they reviewed this development church authorities and the councils of Catholic colleges in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory came to the view that the most effective way to strengthen their higher education activities would be to come together to form a new university within the unified national system. It was proposed that support would be provided by existing major universities to assist the new institution in its development. In May 1990 the council of La Trobe University agreed to serve as sponsor for the new university and to assist it over a period of years to broaden its range of course offerings, develop its research program and expand its post-graduate teaching activities. These developments led to the establishment in 1990 of the Australian Catholic University Ltd, a company limited by guarantee. The first vice-chancellor of the university has been appointed. He is Professor Peter Drake, who was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England. Last year the Victorian government agreed to assist with the establishment of the Australian Catholic University and it has already recognised it under the Post-Secondary Education Act. The government has also assisted the university in its development by amending the constitution of the Institute of Catholic Education to enable it to enter an affiliation agreement which is now in operation. AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (VICTORIA) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1681 For many years the Catholic Church has played a major role in primary, secondary and tertiary education in Australia. It sees the transition of its advanced colleges to university status as a logical and appropriate step in the context of recent changes in the structure of higher education. The government welcomes this change and is pleased to assist in the process. Catholic universities in other countries are widely recognised for their traditions of research and scholarship. There is every expectation that the Australian Catholic University, building on the quality of existing programs in the amalgamating colleges, will develop a similar reputation in the international academic community. While the university is an initiative of the Catholic Church in Australia, it will welcome students of all churches and beliefs, as was the case with each of the former colleges. A significant feature of the new university is that it will have major campuses in a number of different States. Consequently its relationships with State governments will differ from those of most other higher education institutions. The head office of the university has been established in Sydney and Commonwealth funds provided for the university will be provided through New South Wales. However, so far as its operations within Victoria are concerned, the university will be a higher education institution for the purposes of the Post-Secondary Education Act, and the approval powers of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission will apply as they would for other Victorian universities. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL Part 1 of the Bill sets out its purpose, provides definitions and indicates that it comes into effect on a day to be proclaimed. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the conferring or granting of academic awards, making of statutes and regulations, recovery of fines and compensation, freedom of religion, and the management of investments and trusts. Part 3 of the Bill provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities of the institute to the university. CONCLUSION The development of the Australian Catholic University is widely supported by all parties involved. It builds on a number of excellent programs already provided in the colleges which are coming together, and offers enormous potential for exciting new developments. I commend the Bill to the House. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1682 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Debate adjourned for Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) on motion of Hon. M. A. Birrell. Debate adjourned until next day. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading For Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health), Hon. C. J. Hogg (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) -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 which 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 this Bill is to add two non-medical members to the Medical Board. One of the new members is to be a lay member. Honourable members will be aware that, for a number of years, the Medical 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 especially be of value to the board 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 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1683 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, to section 9, addresses the problem of doctors defeating disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Medical Board in relation to their activities by allowing their registration to lapse, and then subsequently applying for re-registration with their record unblemished. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the board to take into account the earlier conduct of that 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, unfit 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, the 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 Medical 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 stop practising, or to receive treatment from an approved medical practitioner, or any combination of these, in appropriate cases. The third change, proposed new section 17C, is designed to enable the registration of a medical practitioner to be suspended, or to have his or her name 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 which could have been held under section 17 of the Act has already been conducted elsewhere. It only remains for me to add that the Medical Practitioners Act is currently being reviewed by a working party chaired by Dr Ian Siggins. While the Medical 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 Medical Board or other matters which may be proposed as a result of the review. On that note I commend the Bill to the House. EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL 1684 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Debate adjourned for Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) on motion of Hon. R. s. de Fegely. Debate adjourned until next day. EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Assembly. Read first time for Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) on motion of Hon. C .J. Hogs. WORKS AND SERVICES (ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No. 1) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Assembly. Read first time for Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing Industry and Development) on motion of Hon. C. J. Hogs. PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading For Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development), Hon. C. ]. Hogg (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make three amendments to the Public Account Act 1958. The amendments implement recommendations for legislative change made by the Economic and Budget Review Committee in its thirtieth report to Parliament. The report details the committee's findings after inquiring into the issues and implications arising from an interest rate swap contract which was entered into by the Crown in the 1989-90 financial year. Under the contract the Crown contracted to make a series of defined payments over a six-year period plus a series of other payments based on the movement in the consumer price index. In return the counterparty contracted to make a series of payments based on the bank bill rate over a six-year period, plus an up-front payment of $35 million. In accordance with independent accounting advice the $35 million up-front payment was credited to the expenditure account for financing charges and not the Consolidated Fund. PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMENT) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1685 The payment was effectively netted off against other expenditure on financing charges which were incurred in the 1989-90 financial year. It was the Auditor-General's view that this amount should have been paid into the Consolidated Fund and should not have been netted off. Legal advice obtained by Treasury immediately following the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General confirmed that the transaction was not a borrowing but indicated that netting off was not possible. The matter was then referred to the Economic and Budget Review Committee. The legal advice obtained by Treasury was given to the Auditor-General, who did not acquit the expenditure. The government has for a number of years used currency and interest rate swaps as one of its tools of debt management. Swaps have been used, for instance, to eliminate exposure to foreign currency fluctuations and to protect against unforeseen increases in short-term interest rates. The swap transaction in question resulted from the $576 million of debt assumed from the State Bank of Victoria by the capital works authority as part of the government's support arrangements for the bank. The debts assumed by the capital works authority had a floating interest rate and it was deemed prudent to swap approximately half of this debt into interest payments linked to inflation. This was on the basis that the government's revenues tend to be linked to inflation. The swap was entered into directly by the Treasurer, and not VicFin, as it was the Consolidated Fund's debt that was being hedged and part of the payments to be received under the swap were in the form of an up-front payment. The netting off of the up-front payment under the swap contract also drew the committee's attention to the longstanding practice of netting off receipts within other expenditure accounts in the Consolidated Fund. The committee found that, on the basis of legal advice provided by Treasury, the payment should not have been netted off and that the receipt should have been paid into the Consolidated Fund. The committee recommended four legislative amendments, all of which are dealt with in the Bill now before the House. The first legislative recommendation made by the committee was that the expenditure of the $35 million on financing charges be validated by legislation. This Bill validates the expenditure. The second and third recommendations were that the Public Account Act be amended to specify the powers of the Treasurer to undertake swap transactions and to provide for special appropriations to meet gross payments under such transactions. The Bill confirms the State's power to enter into swap contracts and contains a special appropriation to meet gross payments under these contracts. The Bill is drafted so as to confirm the power of the State to enter into swap contracts, to avoid any suggestion that the State would not have had power to enter into a swap contract or any other financial arrangement were it not for this Bill or some other piece of legislation. PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMEN'I) BILL 1686 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 The fourth recommendation proposed by the committee was that Victoria adopt the Commonwealth's use of annotated appropriations. The Bill amends the Public Account Act to establish a special appropriation for the introduction of annotated appropriations in the 1991 Appropriation Bill. Although the amendment is included in the Public Account Act, and not the Audit Act as is the case with the Commonwealth, it is modelled on section 35 of the Commonwealth Audit Act. Annotated appropriations are designed to allow government to implement a process by which departments can be encouraged to maximise the revenue potential of their resources. It is a process which, while allowing for a more flexible use of agency resources, at the same time maintains Parliamentary and government scrutiny of the activities to which they refer. It is anticipated, as is the case with the Commonwealth, that the control of the use of annotated appropriations will be through the annual Appropriation Act where the sources of funds to which the annotated appropriations can apply are laid down, and through resource agreements between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the relevant department. The necessary controls and safeguards will be developed in conjunction with the preparation of the 1991-92 Budget. The committee also made a number of recommendations in its report for non-legislative action. The government's response on these recommendations is as follows: The committee found that it was not lawful for a Parliamentary appropriation to be exceeded at any time during the financial year. I have discussed the matter of intra-year adjustments to appropriations with the Auditor-General, who is of the view that the prime focus should be on the annual appropriation amount since this is the amount authorised for payment by the Parliament in annual appropriation legislation. Accordingly, I will ask my officers to work with the Auditor-General in respect of an appropriate amendment to the Public Account Act to ensure that, while appropriations are constrained on an annual basis consistent with the annual appropriation authorised by the Parliament, due consideration is paid to operational aspects of Budget management on a day-to-day basis. Pending legislative amendment, the government has advised all Budget sector agencies that appropriations cannot be exceeded at any time during the financial year. The government accepts the recommendation that transfers of appropriations under section 25 of the Audit Act 1958 be reported in the Treasurer's finance statement. It should be noted, however, that the Audit Act already requires the Auditor-General to summarise in his report in the Treasurer's finance statement approvals given under section 25 of the Audit Act. A summary statement, therefore, already appears in the Auditor-General's report which accompanies the presentation of the Treasurer's finance statement. The committee was concerned that it may be lawful for the government to borrow and not credit the proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. I have asked officers of my department to report to me on this matter and I propose to subsequently report to the committee. WORKS AND SERVICES (ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No. 1) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1687 The government notes the committee's concern that certain swaps can result in a deferral of interest obligations. The government is developing reporting mechanisms to Parliament for the disclosure of interest rate swaps and similar transactions. The government also proposes to consider the development of appropriate safeguards for swap contracts as recommended by the committee. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western). Debate adjourned until next day. WORKS AND SERVICES (ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No. 1) BILL Second reading Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for non-specific appropriation matters, mainly relating to works and services expenditure in the Department of Conservation and Environment, but also including one section related to the Ministry of Education and Training. Following the proclamation of the Water Act 1989 in November 1990, the provisions of the Bill relating to the Department of Conservation and Environment now apply only to waste water treatment and other studies and works in Program No. 215 and to expenditure on works and services in Program No.218 pursuant to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission Act 1982. Technically, these non-specific appropriation matters are more properly handled in separate legislation. Honourable members will be aware that similar legislation was introduced in the four previous years. It is appropriate that this Bill and the Supply Bill be debated jointly to facilitate consideration of the matters contained in them and joint debate will, therefore, be proposed. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.M. HALLAM (Western). Debate adjourned until Thursday, 30 May. CONCURRENT DEBATE Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) - By leave, I move: That this House authorises and requires the Honourable the President to permit the second readings of the Supply (1991-92, No. 1) Bill and the Works and Services (Ancillary Provisions, 1991-92, No. 1) Bill to be debated concurrently. EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL 1688 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Motion agreed to. EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading For Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training), Hon. D. R. White (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has three main purposes: it will enable schools to retain revenue derived from the sale of surplus or obsolete goods and equipment; it will enable overseas students to be charged fees for their education in Victorian government schools; and it will remove a series of anomalies in the Education Act 1958 in relation to the registration of non-government schools. The Education Act presently requires that all proceeds from the sale or disposal by schools of surplus goods or equipment be returned to the Consolidated Fund. I have received numerous approaches from many members of Parliament, from school councils and from parent organisations concerning the lack of incentive under the current arrangements for schools to conduct an efficient disposal program. Given that many of the surplus or obsolete goods in schools are items which were purchased from locally raised funds, it is understandable that local school communities resent having to return the proceeds from sale of surplus goods to the Consolidated Fund. Part 2 of the Bill proposes to amend the Education Act to give schools the opportunity to reduce their stocks of surplus or obsolete goods for the benefit of their schools. The Minister for Education and Training will be empowered to determine an appropriate value below which schools will be able to retain the proceeds from such disposals. Where local circumstances warrant, administrative arrangements will be put in place to enable special approval to be given for schools to retain the proceeds where the amounts are in excess of the Minister's determination. This amendment does not distinguish between goods purchased from locally raised funds and goods purchased from government funds. One of the benefits which will flow to schools as a result of this amendment is that they will be able to take advantage of trade-in opportunities so that they may obtain better value from both locally raised and government funds. I turn now to the second main purpose of the Bill. Australia's trade deficits and overseas debt have led to proposals for the Victorian government to develop exports, particularly in the services sector. Educational services EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1689 by the government school system may be an important potential source of export earnings. Part 3 of the Bill will amend the Education Act to enable overseas students to be charged fees for instruction in government schools. The Bill will do this by excluding overseas students from the direction that instruction of all children attending State schools shall be free for the subjects specified in the Second Schedule of the Act. An overseas student is defined as a person, or a child of any person, who is not an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia and who enters Australia for the primary purpose of receiving education. The definition includes the school age dependants of overseas students since, under Australian immigration law, dependants of foreign nationals are regarded as entering Australia for the same purpose as the principal applicant for a visa. The Commonwealth government has indicated that from the start of 1992, it will not issue visas to the school age dependants of full fee students unless the dependants are also enrolled as full fee students. The Bill will enable Victoria to recover the cost of enrolments of school age dependants of overseas students who elect to enrol in government schools, through fees charged. It will also permit Victoria to recover the cost of enrolments of any non-government schools' overseas students who elect to enrol in the Saturday morning classes of the Victorian School of Languages, and to permit the exclusion of such students if they fail to pay fees. The Bill will achieve these objectives by authorising the Minister for Education and Training to determine the fee which an overseas student is to be charged, to exempt an overseas student or a class of overseas students from the fee and to exclude from school an overseas student who fails to pay the fee. The Bill will apply only to overseas students and their dependants and not to other categories of temporary residents, who are to remain eligible to enrol in Victorian government schools on the same basis as permanent residents. Exchange students pArticipating in approved reciprocal exchange schemes, such as Rotary International's Youth Exchange Program, will not be affected by the Bill. The introduction of a full fee program in government schools may raise community concern about whether the interests of Victorian students are being adequately protected. The detailed arrangements for the pilot program undertaken this year were designed to ensure that there is no untoward impact upon Victorian students nor diminution of the primary responsibility of the public education system to provide free of charge, a comprehensive, high quality education for all Victorian students. A full evaluation of the pilot program has been initiated. The evaluation will include an assessment of the impact of the program on service to domestic students and examine the fee levels charged. Further development of an export program involving overseas recruitment of students will go ahead only if there are clear financial and social benefits for the Victorian education system. Any program would have to adequately safeguard the interests of Victorian students. EDUCATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL 1690 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 The fee level charged in the pilot program is a central issue for the evaluation. The Commonwealth and State governments require that publicly funded schools and institutions charge overseas students, as a minimum, fees which reflect the full average economic cost including both capital and recurrent costs of providing educational and support services to the students in that school, school system or institution. The Commonwealth and State governments do not require publicly funded schools and institutions to demonstrate that their fee levels for overseas students actually achieve full cost recovery for overseas students, because the requirement for fees to be based on full average cost of the institution, school or school system is believed to provide an adequate regulatory safeguard. I believe it is nevertheless desirable that the actual costs of export programs also be calculated to demonstrate to the community whether full cost recovery has actually been achieved and to verify whether the fee level for overseas students is appropriate. It is noteworthy that the inquiry into exports of education services, which the industry commission is currently undertaking, is examining whether the concept of "full average cost" is the appropriate basis for determining minimum fees for overseas students in publicly funded schools and institutions. The introduction of a capacity to charge overseas students tuition fees in government schools will bring Victoria into line with the other States and with Commonwealth policy and introduce a further option for overseas students wishing to undertake quality secondary study in Victoria. I now move to the third main purpose of the Bill. The series of changes proposed in Part 4 of the Bill will remove anomalies in provisions in the Education Act which currently apply to non-government schools. No change in purpose or policy is involved. The changes will: allow schools to include all students over four and a half years of age in their counts of enrolments; allow secondary schools to drop registration at one or more year levels while retaining the registration of the school; ensure that registered schools operating pre-preparatory classes also register as children's services centres; eliminate the requirement to publish registers of registered schools and teachers; allow the fees for the registration of schools to be set by regulation; and, increase penalties for unregistered teachers and schools. The Education Act was amended in 1985 to increase minimum enrolments required for registration purposes. These minimum requirements have applied to all new non-government schools since 1985, and they are to apply to existing schools from 1 January 1991. ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1691 The amendments proposed in clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill will remove anomalies which could mean that some schools may not be eligible to continue with their current registration status. Clause 7 will permit all students between the ages of four and a half and eighteen years of age to be counted towards minimum enrolment figures. There is no mechanism in the Act for maintaining registration of the school while reducing any of the specific year levels for which it holds registration. Clause 8 of the Bill provides this option. The requirements to publish registers of schools and teachers in the Government Gazette is costly. Clause 10 removes this requirement. The registered school board can still confirm the registration of a school or teacher from its own records. The Education Act fixes a fee of $200 for initial registration of a school. It is proposed that the fee be prescribed by regulations rather than by the Act. No significant increases are proposed at this time. A number of registered schools operate "pre-prep" classes for children below four-and-a-half years of age. Children of this age should be safeguarded by the provisions of the Health Act 1958 which regulates children's services centres. The change proposed by clause 11 will achieve this. Registered schools may, of course, hold dual registration as many do at the moment. It is proposed to increase penalties for non-compliance with specific provisions of the Education Act 1958 to more realistic levels. The maximum penalty (such as for conducting an unregistered school) will be increased from 10 to 20 penalty units ($2000). New penalties of 5 units ($500) have been included for offences such as teaching without being registered or operating a school employing an unregistered teacher. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra). Debate adjourned until next day. ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I move: That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 May. Motion agreed to. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I move: That the House do now adjourn. Transport for disadvantaged people Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs and ask her to direct it to the attention of the Minister for Community Services. The problem to which I refer requires a decision to be made to allocate the sum of about $1000 a year so that two people with ADJOURNMENT 1692 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Down's Syndrome might have the benefit of appropriate transport to and from the centre they attend at Seymour. The two people to whom I refer live in the township of Tallarook. One is aged 34 years and the other is a young girl. For some time they have been travelling to Seymour in a bus that normally transports young pupils to the Seymour Special School, Kallamondah. Now the bus has its full complement of students. The Seymour Activities Therapy Centre has a station wagon that is used for other purposes. The two clients are taken home in the evening in the station wagon. The parents of the people are unable to do much. In one case, the mother cannot drive and the husband has Parkinson's disease. In the other, both parents are on war service pensions. It is impossible to travel from Tallarook to Seymour by public transport because it is not available. They would need to take a taxi to make the journey. The centre has been allocated by Community Services Victoria $698 a month for transport. That amount does not cover the cost of transporting the two people both ways. The administrator of the centre, Rhonda Battye, picks up the two people in the morning. She goes 8 kilometres out of her way to pick them up so that they can be driven home in the station wagon in the evening. The situation is ludicrous. It is no wonder the government is losing respect, when this sort of thing happens. It is outrageous and I urge the government to address the problem immediately. As I said, if $1000 were provided each year sufficient funding would be available for these two disadvantaged people in our society to at least be picked up and returned home. They should not be treated in this way. The situation is disgraceful and I urge the Minister to take up the case urgently. Pembroke Secondary College Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - The matter I raise covers two portfolios. It is directed to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training and the Leader of the House, representing the Treasurer. Pembroke Secondary College is a large institution in my electorate. In 1989 the school council decided to establish a second computer room and the expected cost of that with the associated furniture and network requirements was around $50 000. The systems introduced are those recommended by the Ministry of Education and Training. As one would expect, few schools have $50 000 readily available, so the school decided to form a cooperative through which to borrow the money needed. On 1 November 1990, the Pembroke Secondary College No. 2 Cooperative Ltd was duly formed and incorporated as an advancement society. State Bank Victoria was approached for a loan of $40000 and on 20 December 1990 that loan was approved, subject to a government guarantee of the loan. On 21 December the college applied for that government guarantee. The application was detailed, as required by Corporate Affairs Victoria, who forwarded it to Treasury. ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1693 Treasury requested further information and that was completed on 31 January. The application has remained with Treasury for more than three months and is still not approved. It appears a number of other similar applications are being held up. Because of the delay, the students of Pembroke Secondary College - particularly the VCE (Victorian certificate of education) students - are being disadvantaged because the new course has a number of requirements that make it essential for their broad curriculum that they have the equipment that will be supplied in the new computer room. The formation of a cooperative takes hundreds of hours of work by parents and school staff. It was done in the anticipation that the students would be able to benefit from the work undertaken. The school has no other way by which it can gain access to the Ministry-approved computer systems. After seeking more information from Corporate Affairs Victoria, on 24 April 1991 Mr Russell, the administrator of the cooperative, received a letter from Corporate Affairs Victoria in which the following statements were included: As you may be aware, approval of these applications has been subject to long delays after being submitted to the Department of the Treasury. The delays appear to be due to changes in Treasury policy which now involve more stringent examination of the applications and the submission of additional information not previously required by that department. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives and Societies, D. F. Henry, concludes the letter in the following terms: I assure you that every effort is currently being made by this office to expedite this process and to obtain approval for your application. If there has been a change in policy and Treasury is no longer going to approve such guarantees, it needs to become public knowledge. If it is not the case and there is some hiccup, will the Minister please raise the matter and determine what is the difficulty and why this application has not been approved? Director of Public Prosecutions Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health, representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the decision not to prosecute individuals who are alleged to have made a demand on tennis authorities for a payment of $10 000 to avoid an anti-apartheid demonstration at the 1991 Australian Open Tennis Championships. In 1982 this House, with the support of the opposition, passed legislation to establish the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions as an independent prosecuting authority. I seem to recall that the Attorney-General at the time was the former Premier, Mr Cain. In introducing the Bill, he said that it was important that prosecutions be divorced from the political office-bearers in the State and that we should have an independent prosecuting authority. As I said, the Bill was supported by this House. The people who have occupied the position of DPP have been ornaments in their work. They have been supported in their role. On any occasion when issues of prosecution or ADJOURNMENT 1694 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 non-prosecution of a particular offence were raised with Mr Kennan, when he was in this House as Attorney-General, he was at pains to point out that Victoria had an independent prosecution authority and the matter should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are informed that the decision by the police corrurussioner, Mr Glare, not to prosecute for what, on the face of it, appeared to be a blackmail attempt, was made on the advice of the Victorian Government Solicitor, and that advice has not been revealed. The question I address to the Minister, which I ask him to pass on to the Attorney-General, is whether the Attorney-General will articulate why the Director of Public Prosecutions was not resorted to in this case rather than the Victorian Government Solicitor and what are the lines of demarcation for the future when these types of situations arise. In addition, section 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act allows the director to publish guidelines for prosecutions and for those to be furnished to Prosecutors for the Queen, members of the Police Force and for other purposes. The question is whether, in fact, the director had issued guidelines which covered this type of activity. If so, what were those guidelines and how do they impact on the decision of the Chief Commissioner of Police to go to the Victorian Government Solicitor rather than to the independent prosecuting authority - the Director of Public Prosecutions? School building projects Hon. J. G. MILES (Templestowe) - I direct a question to the Minister of Education and Training regarding media reports and also advice from constituents and people outside my province regarding the fact that $30 million worth of vital State government school building projects have been stalled because of cash problems with the contractors. The implication is that in schools such as Ashwood College, Bacchus Marsh Secondary College, Mansfield Primary School, Orchard Grove Primary School, Boondarah Primary School, Western Institute, Melbourne High School and Deakin University, the government has contracted to build schools or additions to schools or tertiary institutions, or has made arrangements with building contractors for renovations and repairs but has not been able to pay the contractors to do the jobs on time because it is broke. Building contractors have employed staff ready to do certain jobs so that they can stay alive, but suddenly they are told, "Sorry, the building and renovations cannot be done; they will be deferred for weeks or months" and that particular builder goes broke and has to sack his workers, leading to more unemployment. Of course, in addition the schools are not receiving the necessary extra buildings or, even worse, new schools are not being built. With that background, I ask the Minister: what action will he take as a Minister of the government largely responsible for this problem to remedy this disastrous situation which is affecting schools as well as the building industry and many hundreds of employees? ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1695 Responses Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - In answer to Mr Craige I will certainly pass on documentation he has given to me and the request he makes to the Minister for Community Services. He mentions a sum of $1000 a year and I will certainly highlight that point to the Minister. Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) -Mrs Varty raised a question about Pembroke Senior College, which is seeking a Treasury guarantee for a cooperative project. I think they are called community advancement cooperatives and they are set up for special purposes - often to build ski lodges and so on - and financed under government guarantee to enable funds to be raised. In this case delays are occurring in the school's efforts to obtain a guarantee to purchase computer equipment and to set up such a facility. I will have to seek advice from Treasury as to whether there is a particular problem with that delay and I will respond when I receive that advice. Mr Miles raised a question about some projects which were stalled. The ignorance Mr Miles shows on the subject is absolutely staggering. The stalling of a project has absolutely nothing to do with funds from the government and it is not good to use such imprecise descriptions of situations which need to be handled properly. A school council or someone acting on behalf of the school council - formerly it was the Department of Housing and Construction and now it is the Department of Planning and Housing -lets a contract with a builder through the normal tendering process. The appropriate contractor or builder wins the contract and they are then able to receive progress payments to build that facility. Hon. J. G. Miles - But you have no money so you are not paying them. Don't try to be patronising; answer the question. Hon. B. T. PULLEN - You are wrong, Mr Miles. It is a simple fact that if the firm involved is unable to complete'the contract because it has cash flow problems that has nothing to do with the non-availability of funds from the government. It is a problem if the successful contractor has difficulties proceeding because of his overall business situation, but it is misleading to suggest that is in any way due to the lack of funds provided to that project by the government. I have organised with the school councils and with the Department of Planning and Housing to have those projects restarted with new tenders, and the problem has been handled. Clearly, if a contractor goes broke in the beginning, middle or latter part of the job it is difficult to see how the job will proceed, but the problem has been handled in relation to the eleven projects I have dealt with, through the process I have indicated. With one other project the we are negotiating with the contractor to see if we can assist with the cash flow problems, because that particular job is part-way complete. ADJOURNMENT 1696 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Again I make it clear that it has nothing to do with the lack of funds. Funds are allocated to each of these projects, and because some of them have barely started I am confident that at least the eleven I have dealt with will all be completed within budget. Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - Mr Chamberlain raises a matter he asks me to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General in respect of the independence of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the prosecution of individuals. He names a particular instance, but the broader issue is why the DPP was not utilised in that case and what lines of demarcation exist. Also, he asked what has been done about the implementation of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, specifically on guidelines for prosecution. I shall bring those matters to the attention of the Attorney-General. Motion agreed to. House adjourned 5.39 p.nt. until Tuesday, 28 May. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1697 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE BOARD OF WORKS PROPERTIES (Question No. 383) Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, for the Minister for Conservation and Environment: Following the Department of Management and Budget requirements for the Ministry to review all of its property holdings, what lands and properties are ronsidered redundant by the Board of Works and will be disposed of in the next two financial years? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Conservation and Environment is: The board intends to dispose of the properties listed in the attached schedule within the next two financial years. METROPOUTAN GENERAL FUND (MGF) PROPERTIES (Land purchased for water, sewerage and drainage purposes) LOCATION CITY OF CAMBERWELL : 16A High Street, ASHBURIDN SHIRE OF DIAMOND VALLEY: Lot 2 Ramptons Road CI1Y OF DONCASTER AND TEMPLESIDWE : Husseys Lane, WARRANDYTE SHIRE OF ELTHAM : Cleveland Avenue/Bonds Road, LOWER PLENTY Winneke (c.a. 8, 9 & 10), Skyline Road; Back Lane Watsons Creek Project Land (Approximately 150 lots) SHIRE OF FUNDERS : CAPE SCHANCK (near outfall-former Construction Site Cl1Y OF KEILOR : Dalwood Place, A VONDALE HEIGHTS CITY OF KNOX : Jersey Road, BA YSWA TER SHIRE OF ULLYDALE : Lot 112 Browns Road, MONTROSE PT Lots 1~17 & PT CA : 17 Wombalano Road PT Silvan-Olinda Aqueduct York Road, MT EVEL YN CITY OF MELBOURNE: 601 Lt Collins Street, MELBOURNE SHIRE OF NARRACAN : Shannahans Lane, NARRACAN CI1Y OF NORTHCOTE : Anderson Road CITY OF NUNAWADING : Morack Road, NUNAWADING CI1Y OF PRESIDN : Henty Street CITY OF RINGWOOD : Gibsons Road, RINGWOOD SHIRE OF SHERBROOKE : Magpie Road, MENZIES CREEK CI1Y OF SPRINGVALE : Braeside Industrial Project Land (10 year Program) Pipe Track (Bangholme Road Estate) SHIRE OF UPPER YARRA : PT CA 110B, Old Warburton Road Lots 1-4 LP 31978 Sussex Street, WARBURTON CI1Y OF WERRIBEE : little Boundary Road, Princes Highway, WERRIBEE CI1Y OF WHITTLESEA : Part C A 19-20 Plenty Road; Vo12444 Fol740 Maroondah Aqueduct, Plenty Road Morang - Broadmeadows Pipetrack QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1698 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 METROPOUTAN IMPROVEMENT FUND (MIF) PROPERTIFS (Land pmchased in capacity as former Planning Authoirty) LOCATION CITY OF BROADMEADOWS: PT Lot 1, Block B, on LP 13191 Farleigh Street; Park Street, BRUNSWICK CITY OF CAMBERWELL : Welfare Parade CITY OF CAULFIELD : 534 Neerim Road PT Lot 2 (Rear No. 5) Kitmont Street, MURRUMBEENA CITY OF COBURG : Lot 1, LP 11588, Nicholson Street CITY OF ESSEN DON : Lot 4, PT Lots 1 & 2, on P /526711 Pascoe Vale Road CITY OF FOOTSCRAY : 8 St Leonards Avenue Napier Street and Moreland Road 132/4 Moreland Road Whitehall Street Hatfield Court CITY OF MOORABBIN : McGuiness Road (Rear of St James College) McGuiness Road (opp. Yarra Yarra Golf Oub) South Road CITY OF NUNAWADING: Fulton Road, NUNAWADING (Easement of Way & Drainage) CITY OF OAKLEIGH : 92-94 Kangaroo Road, HUGHFSDALE CITY OF PRFSTON : PT Lot 8 Halwyn Crescent CITY OF SPRINGVALE : Lot 18, Springvale Road CITY OF SUNSHINE: Lots 7-9 Graham Street Sunshine Road PT Lot 1 on P /574682, Paramount Road, West Footscray CITY OF WA VERLEY : Land off Highbury Road SHIRE OF WHITTLFSEA : Crown portions 19/20, Plenty Road GOVERNMENT MEDIA UNIT (Question No. 508) Hon. G.B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, for the Premier: In view of the Premier's decision to close the Government Media Unit 1. How many members of the unit have been retained by the government in other roles, indicating - (a) the role each person is fulfilling; and (b) each person's rate of pay? 2. How many members of the unit will not be retained by the government in some way when the unit is finally closed, indicating the name of each? 3. On what date will the unit be finally closed? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer supplied by the Premier is: The Media Unit has now closed. Four of the staff of the unit are now employed as follows: Media Adviser ($56 022); Principal Press Secretary ($56 022); Press Office Coordinator ($56 022); and Speech Writer ($49 210). Currently, there is also one vacant position - Regional Project Coordinator ($49 210). In each case, an additional 15 per cent of the salary shown is payable as commuted overtime. The other nine press secretary positions that were in the Media Unit were transferred to Ministers' departments, along with the persons occupying the positions. QUESTIONS ON NOnCE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1699 MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES - OVERSEAS TRAVEL (Question No. 702) Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Community Services: (a) What overseas trips has the Minister made during each of the past four financial years and in this year to date? (b) In relation to each trip - (i) what was the purpose; (ii) what countries were visited; (ill) what was the time away from Victoria; and (iv) what total amount was paid, including allowances? (c) Was the Minister's spouse included in any trip? (d) What staff were taken on each trip and what was the cost of their travel, including expenses? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Community Services is: (a) The former Minister for Community Services, Mrs Caroline Hogs, has travelled overseas, to New Zealand in 1987. No other Minister for Community Services has taken an overseas trip to date. (b) (i) To attend the Social Welfare Ministers Conference; (ii) New Zealand; (ill) four days; (iv) $1732.59. (c) No. (d) Ministerial Adviser; total cost $1606.04. MINISTRY OF ETHNIC, MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - OVERSEAS TRAVEL (Question No. 718) Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: What officials within the Ministry, the department and its agencies have received overseas trips during 1989-90 and in 1990-91 to date, indicating the - (i) position held; (ii) purpose of the trip; (iii) countries visited; and (iv) amount paid, including allowances and expenses? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) -The answer is: 1. During 1989-90 two officers of the Local Government Deparbnent undertook overseas travel that was funded by the Victorian government. 2 (i) Director-General, Local Government Department; Private Secretary, Minister for Local Government; (H) attendance at the annual Local Government Minister's Conference and Local Government Joint Officers Group meeting; (ill) New Zealand; and (iv) the amount paid for the two officers' expense and travel was $3820. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1700 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 MINISTRY OF ETHNIC, MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - PARLIAMENTARY LIAISON OFFICER (Question No. 746) Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community affairs: Which of the bodies within the Minister's responsibility have a Parliamentary liaison officer, indicating in each case the department, Ministry or agency concerned, the name of the officer, and the person's salary and previous occupation? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - This answer is in response to the following questions on notice: 752 (ethnic affairs), 757 (rural affairs), 761 (youth affairs), and 681 Gocal government). As of 8 April 1991, the Parliamentary liaison officer for the Ministry of Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs is Carmen Calleya-Capp. Arrangements are in place in my Ministry to facilitate access by all members of Parliament to information about my portfolio's activities. Members wishing to approach my Ministry about issues relating to ethnic affairs, local government, older persons planning, youth affairs or rural affairs should contact Ms Calleya-Capp. Ms Calleya-Capp is an Administrative Officer ADM7, current salary $43 136, and was previously Secretary to the Ethnic Affairs Commission. COMMUNITY SERVICES VICTORIA - PARLIAMENTARY LIAISON OFFICER (Question No. 751) Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Community Services: Which of the bodies within the Minister's responsibility have a Parliamentary liaison officer, indicating in each case the department, Ministry or agency concerned, the name of the officer, and that person's salary and previous occupation? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Community Services is: In 1990 it was announced by the former Premier that an officer would be nominated and referred to as the "Parliamentary liaison officer" to be first point of contact with departments to provide honourable members with information of concern to them. The Parliamentary liaison function in Community Services Victoria is performed by the Minister's private office and any honourable members wishing to approach the Minister or her department will receive every possible assistance. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1701 PARK RANGERS (Question No. 764) Hon. M. A BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Conservation and Environment Further to the answer to question on notice No. 286 given in this House on 29 August 1990 regarding the number of park rangers employed by the Department of Conservation and Environment: (a) How many rangers allocated to each region in 1989 and 1990 worked - (i) full time; and (ii) part time; on managing land controlled under the National Parks Act 1975? (b) What other functions are fulfilled by park rangers who do not work full time managing land controlled under that Act? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied. by the Minister for Conservation and Environment is: (a) The answer to Legislative Council question on notice No. 572 also refers to this matter. There are no formal"part-time" ranger positions. During the summer months the department often employs a number of temporary "rangers" who assist with holiday programs and act as fee collectors, etc. These are not included in any counts, as the number varies significantly from year to year. The number of full-time rangers employed by the department in 1989 was 221 and in 1990 was 214. Time spent by rangers outside parks control under the National Parks Act 1975 in 1990 was equivalent to 22 ranger years across the State. This loss of ranger time in Act parks is more than compensated for by the contributions of technical officers from other streams such as land protection officers, fisheries and wildlife officers, operations area supervisors, work coordinators and award employees in work area crews. (b) The other functions fulfilled by park rangers not working full time in parks controlled under the National Parks Act, include nonnal ranger duties, such as visitor control, assisting with planning projects and natural resource inventories and supervising works to protect and enhance natural features, etc., on other categories of public land. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS (Question No. 805) Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Mfairs: With regard to the Ministry, the department and its agencies, in each year 1988-89 and 1989-90 and in 1990-91 to date: (a) How many requests have been made under the Freedom of Infonnation Act 1982? (b) How many requests are still in progress? (c) How many requests have had - (i) access granted in full; (ii) access granted in Part only; and (iii) access denied? (d) How many requests were denied under section 30(1)? (e) How many denied requests were subject to appeal and with what results? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1702 COUNCn.. Tuesday, 14 May 1991 (f) What was the total cost of processing freedom of information requests? (g) What amounts were recovered through fees charged? Hon. c.J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer is: Requests made under Freedom of Information Act 1982 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 to date (a) 47 55 30 (b) Nil Nil 7 (c) Full 34 Full 35 Full 15 Part 5 Part 7 Part 6 Denied 8 Denied 12 Denied 2 (d) 1 Nil Nil (e) Internal Review 3 Internal Review 3 Internal Review 2 Access Granted 1 Access Denied 3 Access Denied 2 Access Denied 2 AAT 1 (Access Denied) (f) $458 $1047 $91 (g) $262 $522 $91 WOMEN, ABORIGINAL AND ETHNIC SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (Question No. 850) Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, for the Minister for Small Business: In relation to the women's, Aboriginal and ethnic small business assistance programs of the Department of Industry and Office of Economic Planning: (a) How many companies, individuals and firms have been assisted by the various programs? (b) Which companies, individuals and firms were assisted by each of the programs? (c) Which departmental officers and consultants were engaged in the programs? (d) What were the terms of remuneration of each of the consultants engaged by or on behalf of the programs? (e) Have any of the companies referred to in the answer to part (b) - (i) gained any and what identifiable economic advantage as a consequence of the assistance of the programs; (ii) received any and what grants or financial assistance from the Victorian and/or Commonwealth governments; and (iii) paid any and what fee(s) for the services provided by the division? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Small Business is: WOMEN's SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROCRAM (a) Total number seeking information, advice and/or referral from the SBOC was 99 864 during the period June 1988 to June 1990. Of this figure 38.4 per cent were female inquiries, this equals 38 348 requests for information. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1703 (b) Records of names for general inquiries are not captured. Although records of names for most of the 525 women's businesses which received advice or counselling from the SBOC are available, the information is not collated into a readily accessible listing. (c) The program manager is Ms S. Dahn. The divisional manager is Mr B. Smith. No consultants have been engaged by this program. (d) Not applicable. (e) (i) The program's objective is to improve access for women to the information, advice and referral services available. Accordingly, there is no means to identify specific economic advantage gained from this improved access. (e) (ii)No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth governments through this program. (e) (iii) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice or referral provided through this program. ABORIGlNAL SMALL BUSlNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (a) 104. (b) Records of names for general inquiries are not captured. Whilst records for most of the 104 Aboriginal firms or individuals who received intensive information, advice or referral from the SBOC are available, the information is not collated into a readily accessible listing. (c) The program manager is Mr R. Taylor; the division manager is Mr B. Smith; Consultants, Street Ryan and Associates (d) Total remuneration $19629. (e) (i) The programs relationship with inquiries does not involve the SBOC being privy to financial information which would allow identification of economic advantage gained from improved access to information, advice and referral. (e) (ii)No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth governments through this program. (e) (iii) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice or referral provided through this program. lITHNIC SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (a) & (b) No records are available to detail the names of ethnic people who have received information, advice and/or referral from the SBOC. (c) The program manager is Mr M. Wilkie; the divisional manager is Mr G. Oscar; Consultants, Productive Culture Australia. (d) Total remuneration $14605 (e) (i) There are no means available to identify specific economic advantage gained from this improved access. (e) (ii) No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth governments through this program. (e) (iii) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice and referral provided through this program. HEALTH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA - EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES (Question No. 870) Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Health: QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1704 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 (a) What employment opportunities have been provided in the Minister's department for persons completing studies in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 for - (i) school leavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates? (b) What opportunities will be provided for - (i) schoolleavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates, seeking employment on completion of studies in 1990? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - The answer is: (a) The department did not have specific employment initiatives directed at (i) schoolleavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. Applicants for employment 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. (b) No opportunities will be specifically provided for (i) schoolleavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates, seeking employment on completion of studies in 1990. Scl¥x>lleavers and tertiary graduates must compete with other external applicants on merit MINISTRY OF ETHNIC, MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CONSULTANCIES (Question No. 907) Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: (a) How many people are employed on a contract basis in each of the Ministries, departments or agencies and what is the nature and value of those contracts? (b) How many people were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90 and what was the nature and cost of the consultancies? (c) What new or continuing consultancies now exist? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer is: On behalf of the Office of Local Government - (a) At present no-one is employed by the Office of Local Government on a contract basis. (b) Persons employed to undertake consultancy work during 1989-90 of the then Department of Local Government. - Michael Amold: Regional refuse disposal $5800 - Ernst and Whinney: Post completion evaluation report, Municipal Effectiveness for Effectiveness Review Committee $15 ()()() - Emst ard Whinrey: Municipal Accounting and Audit Practices Review Committee $23100 - Bluestone Print Media: Seniors Week $6818 - Tumbu11 Fox Phillips: Feasibility study on Seniors Card $29 512.50 (c) There are no new or continuing consultancies currently being undertaken within the Office of Local Government. The honourable member is also directed to the answers provided to question on notice No. 915 in the Legislative Council and to question on notice No. 553 in the Legislative Assembly. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1705 (Question No. 915) Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: (a) How many people are employed on a contract basis in each of the Ministry, deparbnents or agencies and what is the nature and value of those contracts? (b) How many people were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90 and what was the nature and cost of the consultancies? (c) What new or continuing consultancies now exist? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer is: The Office of Ethnic Affairs operates a Language Service Division which provides interpreting and translating services to the public, voluntary agencies, including State government departments and community organisations. (a) A panel of 360 contract interpreters and 140 translators are maintained by the office. These interpreters and translators are not employed by the Office of Ethnic Affairs but are available to be engaged on a contract basis as required. In 1989-90 $940 485 was spent on contract interpreters and translators. (b) No persons were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90. (c) No new or continuing consultancies exist. MINISTRY OF ETHNIC, MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - INACTIVE OFFICERS (Question No. 931) Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: For each department and agency, how many officers are on the "inactive list", indicating - (i) their names; (ii) the agency paying the salary I wages; (iii) the date they were first placed on the list; (iv) the value of the salaries paid to each officer; and (v) the value of other benefits paid or provided to each officer? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer is: On behalf of the Office of Local Government, the office has no staff on an "inactive list". SENIORS CARD (Question No. 970) Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: (a) What is the total cost of implementation of the Victorian Seniors Card, including printing, distribution and the projected cost to the government of implementing the card, including lost revenue from transport; QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1706 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 (b) What is the total cost to the government of the previous "Sixty Plus" transport concession card and the "Senior Savings" tourism discount scheme? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Mfairs) - The answer is: The information as supplied by the Older Persons Planning Office is as follows: It Distribution of Seniors Card application forms and local directories as of 20 March 1991: 1. 350 000 application forms were delivered to Australia Post by the printer. A single delivery point is covered in the printing quotation. 2. For a total cost of $15350, application forms and/or local directories were delivered to: (a) 60 000 forms to the Returned Services League for insertion in the magazine Mufti. The RSL in turn has charged $3000 for insertion; (b) 45 000 forms to the Public Transport Corporation; (c) 100 forms to each member of the Legislative Council; (d) 500 or 1500 forms (depending on demographic profile) to each member of the Legislative Assembly together with local providers' forms; (e) 100 forms to each of 575 lawn bowling clubs; (f) 200 forms to each of 400 Senior Citizens Centres; (g) 200 forms to each of 200 ethnic Senior Citizens organisations; (h) 50 forms to each Citizens Advice Bureau; and (i) Local providers sheets to each of 82 municipalities, in quantities varying according to the number of people 60+ in each local government area. A further 600 000 application forms are due to be delivered to Australia Post by the printer at no additional cost. 3. Each member of State Parliament has received by ordinary mail a copy of the central directory and, where applicable, a list of local traders. Each municipal authority has received either a list of local traders or, where there are no participating local businesses, a general explanation of the Seniors Card project. Total cost of 342 letters x $0.42 =$143.64 BUDGET - VICIORIAN SENIORS CARD Expenditure Item Estimated Cost Personnel $100 000 Design of logo & associated items 15078 Directory (typesetting, printing) x 400 000 copies 124858 Applications (printing, distribution) x 1 300 000 copies 56950 Support to private sector providers 42262 Local directories x 300 000 Press advertisements Providers' kits Window decals x 5000 Development of data base (hardware, software) 60610 Key punch x 250 000 (est.) 45260 Manufacture, personalising of cards x 400 000 217280 Australia Post (display, postage) x 250 000 113835 Stationery 11 000 QUESTIONS ON N011CE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCn.. 1707 Expenditure Item Estimated Cost Envelopes x 400 000 All office requisites Public re1ations 16000 Advertising to seniors 31248 Press Ethnic press Radio Ethnic radio Total as of 20 March 1991 $834381 The information supplied by the Ministry of Transport is as follows: It Introduction of Seniors Card to replace 60+ Concession Card Transport Revenue Forgone Estimated at being up to $650 000 per annum Due to widened eligibility (part-time workers over 60 now eligible for Seniors Card and thus 60+ concession. Off-set Savings to Transport Up to 5250 000 per annum This was the PTC costs in administering and processing the 60+ concession card. Approx. 510000 per annum This was PTC advertising costs for 60+ concession card. Approx. 5100 000 per annum Extra revenue on Met services during Senior Qtizens Week as a result of raising age eligibility to be consistent with Seniors Card (from over 55 to over 60) Approx. $60 000 per annum Increased revenue to PTC due to effect of induced travel from an increased distribution of Seniors Card compared to 60+ cards. Total cost of Previous 60+ Transport Concession Community Services Victoria provide an annual allocation to the Public Transport Corporation to reimburse for revenue forgone as a result of a range of concessions provided as part of the PfC's community service obligations. These obligations include 60+ concessions, pensioner concessions and free passes for war veterans, their widows and wives, blind people and TPI pensioners. This allocation to the PfC was $3.4 million in 1989-90. The information as supplied by Tourism is as follows: The total cost to date of the "Senior Savings" Tourism discount scheme/card is $172346. LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FILMS AND VIDEOS (Question No. 973) Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs: (a) What films and videos were produced within the Local Government Department in the years - (i) 1987-88; (ii) 1988-89; and (ill) 1989-90? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1708 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 (b) In respect of each such film or video - (i) what was the cost of production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (iii) was the production approved by Film Victoria? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer is: On behalf of the Office of Local Government, no films or videos were produced by the then Local Government lRpartment in 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONCESSIONS (Question No. 997) Hon. G. H. COX (Nunawading) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Transport: What is the amount of fare revenue forgone for concessional fares to pensioners on public transport in each of the years ended 30 June 1980-81 to 1989-90? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer provided by the Minister for Transport is: The Public Transport Corporation provides services to various groups of people at a concession rate or at no cost to the user. A subsidy is then provided from Treasury as reimbursement for the provision of these services. The recoupment of the welfare based concessions (including pensioner concessions) for each year since 1980-81 is as follows: $m 1980-81 9.5 1981-82 11.5 1982-83 13.9 1983-84 16.4 1984-85 19.1 1985-86 19.6 1986-87 21.0 1987-88 22.3 1988-89 24.4 1989-90 28.9 1990-91 29.5 (estimated) PORT OF MELBOURNE AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (Question No. 998) Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) asked the Minister responsible for ports: In relation to Mr Jack Finnan: (a) On what basis was he employed by the Port of Melbourne Authority? (b) What positions did he hold with the authority and what were the conditions of his employment? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1709 (c) Did he transfer his superannuation from the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works to the authority? (d) Was he sacked from the authority? (e) Why did he become redundant? (0 On what terms did he cease employment with the authority and what payments were made to him? (g) Was part of the deal that he would go back to the Board of Works at SES-6level to be the Special Projects Officer to build the new 6O-place child-care centre at the World Trade Centre or was this part of a trade-off so he would not sue the authority? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer is: (a) Mr Firman was appointed equivalent to a Senior Executive Service (SES) class 6 in the Public Service. In addition, the Board of the Port of Melbourne Authority agreed to transfer from the MMBW all Mr Firman's current sick leave entitlements. (b) Mr Firman was general manager and chief exa..'Utive of the authority employed on comparable conditions as other SES officers in the Public Service. (c) No. (d) No. (e) Following the appointment of the chairman as full-time chairman and chief executive Mr Firman chose to resign. (0 Mr Firman was paid the normal termination payment, approved by the Remuneration Review Committee. The details of the payment are of a private nature between Mr Firman and the authority. (g) No, Mr Firman secured his own position at the MMBW. PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION BUS FLEET (Question No. lOOS) Hon. K. M. SMI1H (South Eastern) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Min.ister for Transport: (a) What were the total numbers of staff in each trade or management category employed by the Public Transport Corporation as at 30 June, 1990 to carry out or supervise the maintenance and repair of the bus fleet, indicating the total pay-roll costs in each of the above categories for the 1989-90 financial year? (b) What was the value of the spare parts inventory held by the Public Transport Corporation for maintenance and repair of its bus fleet as at 30 June, 199O? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer provided by the Minister for Transport is: (a) Supervisors 12 Administrative Officers 2 Motor Mechanics 67 Apprentice Motor Mechanics 12 Automoti ve Electricians 13 Apprentice Automotive Electricians 5 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1710 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 Welder 1 Fitter & Twner 1 Bodymaker 13 Apprentice Bodymaker 1 Panel Beater 6 Trimmer 4 Painter 3 Tyre Worker 5 Bus Parker /Qeaner 54 Total 199 The total payroll costs for each of the above categories are not readily available. However, the total payroll rost for the above employees for 1989-90, including payroll tax and WorkCare premium, was $5 682 049. (b) The spare parts inventory held in the Public Transport Corporation's store for the maintenance and repair of its bus fleet was valued at 51 014 ()()() as at 30 June, 1990. STUDENT TRANSPORT CONCESSIONS (Question No. 1009) Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Transport: (a) What was the revenue forgone for student fare concessions in 1988-89 and 1989-9O? (b) What is the estimated revenue forgone for student fare concessions in 1990-911 Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The Minister for Transport has advised that: (a) The Public Transport Corporation receives reimbursement from the Ministry of Education and Training for student concessions. The recoupment received in the last two years was $9.4 million for 1988-89 and $9.9 million for 1989-90. (b) The budgeted recoupment for 1990-91 is $10 million. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT CONSULTANCIES (Question No. 1010) Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Transport: In respect of each deparbnent, agency and authority within his administration, what are the names of each consultant employed since 1988, indicating in each case - (i) the purpose for which they were employed; (ii) what working plans were given; (ill) the cost of tbeir services; (iv) the duration of their contract; and (v) any additional payments in excess of the contract price? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Transport is: QUESTIONS ON NonCE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1711 The engagement of consultants generally falls into two main categories - consultancies exceeding $10000 which are the subject of approval by the Effectiveness Review Committee and Tender Board; and consultancies under $10 000, which are approved by the chief administrators within an approved overall program. To provide all the detailed infonnation being sought by the honourable member in respect of every consultancy across the transport portfolio would require considerable research which cannot be justified. However, infonnation in respect of the names, purpose and approved expenditure of consultancies engaged by the Ministry and transport agencies since 1988-89 is as follows: Approved Agency Consultant Purpose Expenditme (S) Ministry of Transport 1988-89 Salter Advertising Boating Safety Program 90000 Tcrmlc TransitCoosultant Review Met system 30000 1989-90 Touche Ross and Appraisal of Very Fast Train 100000 Dames&Moore Proposal Salter Advertising Boating Safety & Education Program 90000 Public Transport Corporation 1988-89 Cameron McNamara Analyse Airport West Tram Extension 7500 Coopers and Lybrand Chart of Accounts Development 25000 Coopers & Lybrand Disaster Recovery Planning 30500 Coopers & Lybrand Hinders Street Commercial Development 415 000 (est) Econsult Management South Melbourne/ Albert Park Stations 9000 John Connell Group Met Plan 39000 KPMG Peat Marwick Redeployment Procedures 5000 Price Waterhouse Overhead Review (V /Une) 560320 Urwick University of Melbourne Spencer Street Station 10000 Yann Campbell Hoare Self Validation TIcketing 20400 Cltandler & McLeod Executive Search 9000 Ove Amp &,Macquarie Community Consultation 20000 M Arnold Strategy on Private Bus Services 9000 1989-90 M Amold Private Bus Contracts/Neighbourhood 9000 Oearwater Corporate Passenger Signage Program 45 000 (est) Service Connell Wagner Spencer Street Station Relocation 7500 Dominguez Barry Samuel Review of Printing Works 20000 MonteguLtd Heather Weller Computer Package/Training 12500 Heather Weller Induction Program, Freight/Passenger Serv. 10000 JohnPYoung& Value Engineering Program3 080 KPMG Peat Marwick Structural Efficiency 2200 Associates McLennan Magasanik Fast Freight Train 45000 Nelson Parkhill Review of Printing Works 19750 Olron Consultancy Staff Facilities - South Dynon 6000 Price Waterhouse Overhead Review (Met) 124069 Price Waterhouse Road Motor Fleet Review 26245 QUESTIONS ON NonCE 1712 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 Approved Agency Consultant Purpose Expenditure ($) P A Consulting and Telecommunications Strategy 118 000 (est) Consultel P A Consulting Group Business Performance Monitoring 85000 P B Maunsell P IL Value Engineering 6400 T Way Review of Sleeper Supplies 7000 (est) Retail Excellence Met TIckets 124000 Planning &: Development Upfield 27000 Retail Excellence Met TIcket 96000 Roads Corporation 1988-89 Otandler &: McLeod Executive Search 9000 Nelson English Loxton &: Plenty Valley Transport Strategy 60000 Andrews Taylor, Young, Wigan &: Metro Travel Study 10000 Ogden Road Traffic Authority Victorian Taxi Advisory Council 20000 Ilian Sweeney &: ABxiaIesTaxi User Survey 15300 1989-90 Coopers &: Lybrand Disaster Recovery 20000 Grain Elevators Board 1988-89 Auslang Feasibility Study 4950 Geoff Holland &: Engineering Design Terminal Extension 11862 Associated AWN Consultants Environment Monitoring at Geelong 4000 1989-90 Best Business Services Supply Function of GEB 22996 Geoff Holland &: Trackshed Alteration At Geelong 23000 Associates Geoff Holland &: Stanhope Silo Relocation 3770 Associates Harold W Bloxom Power, Sunshine Plant 1450 WiUiamson Warner &: High Capacity Rail Inloading at Geelong 26000 Roach Price Waterhouse StudyofGEB 383400 Urwick Daniel Johnston Training Course 7500 John Mack1in GEB site Wangaratta 3000 Consultants TSR Training Training Courses 7800 Consultants Transport Accident Commission 1988-1990 Richard Oliver &: Management Training 7000 Associates Peat Marwick &: Training Needs 9800 Hungerfords Peat Marwick &: Staff Selection 4050 Hungerfords HRM Consulting Staff Training 9125 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 14 May 1991 COUNCIL 1713 Approved Agency Consultant Purpose Expenditure ($) 1988-1990 John P Young & Oient Service Course 5355 Associates HRM Consulting Staff Training 3000 Business Solutions P IL Training Course 2700 Business Solutions P IL Management Training 1800 Tobin Brothers Training Course 700 JohnPYoung Management Training 6500 Business Solutions P IL Staff Training 2700 Business Solutions P IL Training 900 Tony Norquay & Training 2600 Asodates J M McDonald & Reporting Training 5000 Associates John P Young & Customer Service 4400 Associates Tony Norquay & Performance Feedlock 2750 Associates HRM Consulting P IL Staff Training 9000 Tony Norquay & Staff Training 1400 Associates John P Young & Management Training 1930 Associates John P Young & Management Training 1960 Associates Wide Angle P IL Market Research - Driver Attitudes 4850 Rodie Research PI L Accident Prevention Submissions 9800 GRAPPLP/L Statistics on Booze Buses 9900 Pappas, Carter, Acddent Prevention Project 34000 Evans& Koop Fmancial Synergy P IL Actuarial Valuation 69200 Finandal Synergy P IL Actuarial Valuation 75000 Housley Communications Voicel data Communications 7200 Deloitte Consulting Group Report on Traffic Camera Enlargements 21625 DeloitteConsultingGroup Advise on Traffic Camera Procedures 9900 Richard Oliver Assess Risks & Safeguards for Computers 8000 Risk Managers Housley Communications System Communications 9360 Con trol Risk Pacific Staff Security Measures 9600 John Clarebrough Medical & Rehabilitation advice 10000 MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT FILMS AND VIDEOS (Question No. 1022) Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, for the Minister for Transport: QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1714 COUNCIL Tuesday, 14 May 1991 (a) What films or videos were produced within the Ministry of Transport in each of the years 1987-88,1988-89 and 1989-90? (b) In respect of each such film or video - (i) what was the cost of production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (iii) was the production approved by Film Victoria? Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Mfairs) - The Minister for Transport has advised that the Ministry of Transport did not proouce any films or videos in the years from 1987-88 to date. DEBT RETIREMENT AUTHORITY (Question No. 1026) Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, for the Treasurer: What are the terms, remuneration and the duration of the appointments of members of the board of the Debt Retirement Authority? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer supplied by the Treasurer is: Victorian Debt Retirement AuthOrity. (a) Term of Office (1) A member of the authority is appointed for such term, not exceeding three years, as is Specified in the member's instrument of appointment (2) A member is eligible for reappointment. (b) Remuneration A member of the authority, unless an officer of the Public Service, is entitled to the remuneration and allowances (if any) fixed by the Governor in Council and published in the Gooernment Gazette. Note: Remuneration is still under review. (c) Members of the board: (a) the Director-General of the Treasury; and (b) an officer employed in the Treasury appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Treasurer; and (c) two persons with experience in banking, finance or law appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Treasurer. Members' names Duration of appointment (a) Barry Newton Nicholls 20 December 1990 (Director-General, Treasury) (b) Bruce Douglas Rasmussen 20 December 1990 to (Public servant) 19 December 1993 (c) lan Ne1l Ferres 20 December 1990 to 19 December 1992 William Patriclc Gurry 26 March 1991 to 19 December 1992 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1715 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING - INACfIVE LIST (Question No. 930) Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Education and Training: For each deparbnent and agency, how many officers are on the "inactive list" indicating- (i) their names; (ii) the agency paying the salary/wages; (iii) the date they were first placed on the list; (iv) the value of salaries paid to each officer; and (v) the value of other benefits paid or provided to each officer? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer is: 1. The agencies of the Ministry of Education and Training - Office of Schools Administration, Division of Further Education, Portfofio Coordination Division, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board, Office of the State Training Board, and Council of Adult Education - do not have "inactive lists". However, the Office of Schools Administration maintains a redeployment register of redeployees from all agencies of the Ministry other than the Office of the State Training Board. The redeployment processes established by the Workforce Management Unit are in operation throughout all Ministry agencies. Officers declared surplus as a result of structural changes to administrative units are placed on the redeployment register. These officers are subject to an active redeployment process to place them in permanent positions when vacancies arise within the MiniStry of Education and Training or within other agencies of the government sector. The process is as follows: when an officer is declared surplus to requirements, he/she is placed on a redeployment register and considered for redeployment in all administrative units within the Ministry of Education and Training. The officer is also registered for redeployment with the Workforce Management Unit in the Deparbnent of Labour. The unit matches a redeployee's skills and experience against current vacant positions, and, where a suitable position is identified, the officer is referred to the relevant department or agency for interview. . While the redeployment process is under way, the surplus officer is given productive. work to do and is continued to be paid by the agency. Career and personal counselling is provided for such officers. Surplus officers may also undertake special supervised projects which are designed to expand their existing skill base, while fulfilling an organisational need. In response to part (v) of the question the Office of Schools Administration has only one officer on the redeployment register receiving an allowance. This is an expense of office allowance for an SE~1 officer. The amount paid is $3284.00. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1716 COUNCn.. Wednesday, 15 May 1991 EDUCATION AND TRAINING FILMS AND VIDEOS (Question No. 986) Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Education and Training: (a) What films or videos were produced within the Ministry of Education in the years - (i) 1987-88; (ii) 19~; and (ill) 1989-901 (b) In respect of each such film and video - (i) what was the rost of production; (ll) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria? Hon. B.T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer is: (a) Details of videos produced within the Office of Schools Administration (OSA) are in the attached table. Note that there was a total budget for the production of videos by the OSA, and, it is not always possible to provide details of individual rostings. No films or videos were produced by the Division of Further Education (OFE), the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board (VCAB) or the State Training Board (STB). The Council of Adult Education (CAB) produced Better Safe Than Sorry and Cash, Crime and Common Sense in 1988-89. The Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (VPSEC) is, inter alia, responsible for the management of nurse education funds, and the provision of executive support for the Joint Interdepartmental Steering Committee for the Transfer of Nurse Education from Hospitals to Colleges of Advanced Education, and the Joint . Interdepartmental Steering Committee for the Transfer of Mental Retardation and Psychiatric Nurse Education. Becoming a Nurse (1988), Intel1edual Disllbility Nursing and A Personal Challenge (1989) were produced. (b) In relation to the OSA, none of the productions was arranged, undertaken, or produced by Film Victoria. In relation to the Council of Adult Education videos, Better Safe than Sorry rost $301 (XX), and Cash, Crime and Common Sense $55 (xx). These films were produced on behalf of a client, the Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP). Both films were produced for the client, and ownership and copyright remained with them, and advice was that approval from Film Victoria was not required. In relation to VPSEC: the rost of Becoming a Nurse was $18 635. The rost of Intellectual Disllbility Nursing was $25 000. The rost of A Personal Challenge was $25 (XX). Becoming a Nurse was neither arranged nor undertaken by Film Victoria. Intellectual Disability Nursing and A Personal Challenge were arranged with and undertaken under rontract with Film Victoria, in ronsultation with the relevant committee. Approval for the production Becoming a Nurse was not sought from Film Victoria. Approval for the production of Intellectual Disability Nursing and A Personal CIulI1enge was obtained from Film Victoria. The honourable member should be aware that section 15 of the FIlm Victoria Act specifies that: (6) This section shall not apply to the Education Department or the Audio Visual Resources Bmnch of that Department in respect of the production of a film or sound recording only for use for educational purposes and not for general exhibition or broadcast. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCll.. 1717 The attachment referred to in (a) is as follows: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING OFFICE OF SCHOOlS ADMINISTRATION VIDEO PRODUCTION 1987-88 -1989-90 Title Year Above line oosts Grouping Children: Some Alternatives (edited.) 87-88 N/A Plain English Speaking Awards State Final: 1987 Tape 1 87-88 N/A Plain English Speaking Awards State Final: 1987 Tape 2 87-88 N/A Communicating with Kinder Kids 87-88 N/A Languages at Work 87-88 N/A Australia's Bicentennial: Retwn to Botany Bay 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: Celebrating the Bicentennary with Computers 87-88 N/A Band in the Bush 87-88 N/A Chalkface: A trip to Mexico - An integrated approach 87-88 N/A Communication without Speech 87-88 N/A Cover to Cover: Jane Tanner 87-88 N/A Cover to Cover: Trends in Children's Books 87-88 N/A Cmrlculum by Technology 87-88 N/A Dinosaurs 87-88 N/A Early Melbourne: From Village to Town 87-88 N/A Frameworks in Context 87-88 N/A Getting Started with Curriculum Frameworks 87-88 N/A Health Downunder 87-88 N/A How Does Your Garden Grow: Propagating plants 87-88 N/A How Does Your Garden Grow: Potting up 87-88 N/A Talking to Prep Teachers 87-88 N/A Moni and Ge 1718 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Title Year Above line CXl8ts Issues in Education: The Chief Executive - Schooling P-12 87-88 N/A Join the Bicentennial 87-88 N/A Mini Beasts 87-88 N/A Modelling Bakers aay 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Copper's Chorus - Blackbum High School 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: I'm so happy - Blackbum High School on Music Magazine - Copper's 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Rockman - Foreman Material- Blackbum High School Stage Band 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Sara - Foreman Material- Blackbum HS Stage Band on Music 87-88 N/A Mtmc Magazine: St Paul's Suite - String Ensemble - VCOTAS 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Home among the gum trees - Warrandyte Primary School Bush Band 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Thongs - Warrandyte PS Bush Band on Music Magazine: Home 87-88 N/A Nature Printing 87-88 N/A Ordnance Factory 87-88 N/A PondUfe 87-88 N/A Principal Selection 87-88 N/A Ready Set Go: Preparing your dilld for school Part 1 87-88 N/A Ready Set Go: Preparing your dilld for school Part 2 87-88 N/A Senior Campus 87-88 N/A Skinsense 87-88 N/A Software Evaluation Project, A 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: Performing Arts for kids 87-88 N/A TV Bd Magazine: Running Hot 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: School readers' on 1V Ed Magazine Rumung Hot 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: Student publications 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: New publications - Art 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: Issues in Education - Directions in Curriculum 87-88 N/A Two Sides of the River 87-88 N/A Update:VCE 87-88 N/A Village on the Yarra 87-88 N/A Heritage Awareness 87-88 N/A Gould League Reptile Show, The 87-88 N/A Gould League Snake Show, The 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: Auditions 87-88 N/A Signs: The Road Construction Authority 87-88 N/A TV Bd Magazine: Student Publications - Feet 87-88 N/A Grim Reaper opening announcement 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: Don't Need Nobody - Crescendo- Preston Girls High School on Mtmc 87-88 N/A Music Magazine: I'm a Puppet - Crescendo - Preston Girls High School 87-88 N/A Changing TImes - Changing Schools: Establishing Victorian Secondary 87-88 N/A How Does Your Garden Grow: Sowing seeds Making Maps 87-88 N/A QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Wednesday. 15 May 1991 COUNcn.. 1719 Title Year Above tine oosts Preparing for School: Intra 1987 87-88 N/A Grouping Children: Some alternatives 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: A message from Gorbachev 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: New Publications - Art 87-88 N/A Closing Announcement 87-88 N/A Commission for the Future 87-88 N/A TV Ed Magazine: School readers (edited) 87-88 N/A TV Ed Master insert reel 22.6.1987 87-88 N/A TV Ed Master insert reel 20.7.1987 87-88 N/A Feet and Footware: Caring for your feet 88-89 N/A Benea th our Feet: Granites 88-89 N/A Building an Education Partnership through the School Cooununity 88-89 N/A Just One of the Kids 88-89 N/A Rachel Part 1 88-89 N/A Rachel Part 2 88-89 N/A State Education Week, September 1988: Cooununity Announcements 88-89 N/A Challenge of the Trade 88-89 N/A [)ance,I>.runce,I>.runce 88-89 $10000 Right Ingredients, The 88-89 N/A Plain English Speaking Awards State Final: 1988 Placegetters 88-89 N/A Plain English Speaking Awards Pacific International Anal: 1988 88-89 N/A Access to the Future 88-89 N/A Trying Out 88-89 N/A People Who Help Us: The Nurse 88-89 N/A People Who Help Us: The Vet 88-89 N/A People Who Help Us: Ambulanre 88-89 N/A Languages of Distance, The 88-89 N/A Keyboard Skills in a Language Program 88-89 N/A Building an African Village 88-89 N/A Visions of Perfection: Victorian College of the Arts school 88-89 N/A People Who Help Us: The Firefighters 88-89 N/A People Who Help Us: The Police Helicopter 88-89 N/A Start Off: An innovative approach to FSL 88-89 N/A What's New in Educaton: 3 88-89 N/A Chalkface: Student partidpation 88-89 N/A Fabric Painting 88-89 N/A Our Pandas 88-89 N/A What About Me? Young people and local government 88-89 N/A Chalkface: Art maps 88-89 N/A Chalkface: How do you spell my name in Chinese? 88-89 N/A Chalkface: I like maths 88-89 N/A DandngFeet 88-89 N/A Reflections: Derinya bicentennial day 88-89 N/A Getting Started with Health Education 88-89 N/A Indian Dance: Victorian Arts Council Schools program 88-89 N/A Introduction to the Disk Operating System Program of a Personal Computer 88-89 N/A Introduction to Word Processing using a Personal Computer, An 88-89 N/A Italian in the Primary School 88-89 N/A QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1720 COUNCIL Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Title Year Above line oosts Magical Machine ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Preludio from Partita No. 3 - Zoe Black- VCOTAS on Magical Machine ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Brazillian Minatures - Percussion Group - VCOTAS ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Improvisation for Percussion - Percussion Group - VCOTAS on ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Right on Track - Celebration - Sydney Road Community School ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Show me the Way - Celebration - Sydney Road Community School on 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Run to Paradise - Prefects- Sydney Road Community School ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Get me Down - Prefects - Sydney Road Community School on Music ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Scheerzo in US" Flat by Chopin - Adam Przewlocld - VCOTAS ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Toccata by Poulenc - Rachel MUsom - VCOTAS on Music Magazine ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Oarinet Concerto in 11 A" Major by Mozart - Michele Undsay - VCOTAS on ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Double Clarinet Concerto: Opus 35 by Krommer - Students ~9 N/A Music Magazine: Preludio from Partita - Zoe Black- VCOTAS on Music Magazine 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Memory - Joanne Drwy - VCOTAS on Music Magazine: Scherzo in US" ~9 N/A Music Magazine: You Think I'll be There - Vice Versa- Boronia Technical School 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Rock 'N' Roll Hoochie Coo - Vice Versa- Boronia Technical School on Music ~9 N/A Music Magazine: We are All-Vice Versa - Boronia Technical School on You think I'll be 88-89 N/A New products ~9 N/A Riff Raff the Re-mix (Kids for Kids) 88-89 N/A Seamanship Skills: Boat handling 88-89 N/A Seamanship Skills: Boat preparation and sailing basics 88-89 N/A Seamanship Skills: Marine safety and pyrotechnics ~9 N/A Seamanship Skills: Marine safety and survival at sea 88-89 N/A Seamanship Skills: Medical aspects of marine safety 88-89 N/A Using a Computer Catalogue ~9 N/A What is a Curriculum Day? 88-89 N/A What's New in Education: 1 88-89 N/A What's New in Education: 2 88-89 N/A Which Bike for you? 88-89 N/A School Support Centres (edited) 88-89 N/A Introduction to Computer Systems, An 88-89 N/A Introduction to Data Entry, An 88-89 N/A QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Wednesday, 15 May 1991 COUNCIL 1721 Title Year Above line costs Learning to Perform: A Portrait of the Victorian College of the Arts school 88-89 N/A TV Ed Australia: Promotion excerpts 1988 (Various titles) 88-89 N/A State Education Week, September 1988: Community Announcements 88-89 N/A Health Down Under: Introduction 88-89 N/A Music Education: See ya later alligator - The Rockits- Williamstown High School 88-89 N/A Music Education: Rock around the dock - flemington Primary School Orchestra 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Uttle Sister - The Rockits - Williamstown High School on Music Magazine 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Bo Diddly - The Rockits - Williamstown High School on Music Magazine 88-89 N/A Music Magazine: Ovil War Patrol- Flemington Primary School Orchestra on Mtmc 88-89 N/A Futures Education: The greenhouse effect in Brunswick 88-89 N/A Writing for Real ... 88-89 N/A New Educational Videos: 1 88-89 N/A Learning to Perform: A Portrait of the Victorian College of the Arts school (edited out-takes from) 88-89 N/A Panda Kit Launch (Included in New Products) 88-89 N/A Introduction to 1V Ed Australia: 1989 89-90 N/A What's New in Education: 4 89-90 $1000 Local Interest, A 89-90 $1000 What Should Happen? Investigating oommunity decision making 89-90 N/A What's New in Education: 5 89-90 N/A Clickers aub: Photo adventures in curriculum 89-90 N/A Leigh's Music Shop: Move it to mlSc 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 3 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 2 89-90 N/A Please Wear a Poppy, The Lady Said 89-90 N/A Another Piece of Equipment 89-90 N/A Spring 89-90 $2000 Shaping Up: Work and evaluation 89-90 $1000 Cover to Cover: Rood Dahl 89-90 N/A Chocolates, Giants & Peaches: Roald DahlUve in Melbourne Part 1 89-90 N/A Chocolates, Giants & Peaches: Roald Dahl Uve in Melbourne Part 2 89-90 N/A Chocolates, Giants & Peaches: Roald Dahl Uve in Melbourne Part 3 89-90 N/A Job & Course Explorer (Not to be released) 89-90 N/A Natural Dyes 89-90 N/A Staying Alive Show: 1,2,3 89-90 $20000 Leigh's Music Shop: Beat It 89-90 N/A I think I Can 89-90 $25000 New Educational Videos: 4 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 5 89-90 N/A Way to work, A 89-90 $8000 It's Not All Rubbish 89-90 $7500 What's New in Education 89-90 N/A More or Less: A film about food 89-90 $3000 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1722 COUNCll. Wednesday, 15 May 1991 Title Year Above line costs Introduction to Data Base Management 89-90 N/A Introduction to Spreadsbeets, An 89-90 N/A Introduction to Weaving, An 89-90 N/A State Education Week 1989: Community 89-90 $5000 Taking Action 89-90 $20000 Frameworks in Action: Active learning (edited) 89-90 N/A People Who Help Us: Oakbank Farm 89-90 $1000 Ship in the Sky, The 89-90 N/A All Aboard the Abel Tasman 89-90 N/A Directions '89: Ministers address to post-primary prindpals 89-90 N/A Magazines for Kids 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 6 89-90 N/A Cover to Cover: Paul Jennings (edited) 89-90 N/A Seamanship Skills: Bends and hitches 89-90 N/A Leigh's Music Shop: The Ingredients of a Soog 89-90 N/A Music Magazine: All night, All day - Deer Park North Primary School Band 89-90 N/A M1.Eic Magazine: Friday Calypso - Deer Park Nmth Primary School Band on Music Magazine 89-90 N/A Frameworks in Action: Active learning 89-90 $2000 Welcome to Students: Mrs J. Kimer, Minister for Education 89-90 N/A Children's Week Celebrations (edited) 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 7 89-90 N/A Read any Good Films Lately? (edited) 89-90 $600 Coburg State Schools 89-90 N/A M1.Eic Magazine: Cryin' Shame - Williamstown High School Concert/Rock Band 89-90 N/A No Labels for Annie 89-90 $10000 Staying Alive Show: t 89-90 Series Staying Alive Show: 2 on Staying Alive Show: t 89-90 Series Staying Alive Show: 3 on Staying Alive Show: 1 89-90 Series Staying Alive Show: t (compilation tape) 89-90 Series Staying Alive Show: 2 on Staying Alive Show: 1 (compilation tape) 89-90 Series Staying Alive Show: 3 on Staying Alive Show: t (compilation tape) 89-90 Series Zoo Dance 89-90 N/A New Educational Videos: 7 (edited) 89-90 N/A I Can Read 89-90 $3000 Does and Macs: Segments 89-90 N/A Does and Macs: Musical Items 89-90 N/A POLLUTION OF WATERS BY OIL AND NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES (AMENDMENT) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1723 Tuesday, 28 May 1991 The PRESIDENT (Hon. A. J. Hunt) took the chair at 3.3 p.m. and read the prayer. POLLUTION OF WATERS BY OIL AND NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Assembly. Read first time on motion of Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs). WORLD CONGRESS CENTRE The PRESIDENT - Order! Honourable members will recall that on 8 May 1991 the House passed a resolution calling upon the Auditor-General to inquire into the ·funding of the World Congress Centre. In accordance with custom, the Clerk conveyed the text of the resolution to the Auditor-General and a response has now been received. I ask the Clerk to read the Auditor-General's response. The Clerk - The response states: Dear Mr Bray I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 9 May 1991 in which you referred to me the resolution of the Legislative Council calling upon me to inquire into the funding of the World Congress Centre. I wish to advise that it is my intention to undertake a review of the arrangements entered into by the State in regard to the funding of the World Congress Centre and to report my findings to the Parliament. However, at this early stage, I am not in a position to advise of the mode and timing of such reporting to the Parliament. This will be decided in due course. Yours sincerely C.A.BARAGW ANATH Auditor-General 17/5/1991 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1724 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE DOCKLANDS PROJECT Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - Will the Minister responsible for ports advise the House whether the Port of Melbourne Authority has formally decided on a timetable to shift some of its port facilities to facilitate the development of the Docklands area? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) -It is my understanding that the area east of Moonee Ponds Creek is the area the Docklands Authority wants to access in the first instance for major investment potential and development. Some port-related activities continue in that area, and the Port of Melbourne Authority will be pleased to work with the Docklands Authority in endeavouring to make the land available on a mutually agreeable basis. A commitment was made by the Port of Melbourne Authority with regard to the Melbourne bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. An issue exists in relation to the proposed extension of the Appleton Dock at the mouth of the Moonee Ponds Creek. I am not sure whether that matter has been resolved by the two authorities. However, I shall be pleased to take up the matter with the Port of Melbourne Authority so it can be resolved, if it has not been already, as expeditiously as possible. WORKCARE REGULATIONS Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) - I refer the Minister for Health to the decision of the Accident Compensation Commission to issue provisional WorkCare notices for 1991-92 in anticipation of a change in regulations. I ask the Minister whether she is aware that the change in regulations will impose an enormous penalty on hospitals in particular, quite unfairly in my view. If she is aware of that outcome, what does the Minister intend to do to help the hospitals suffering this latest financial blow? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - No, I am not aware of the matter Mr Hallam has raised. I shall certainly investigate it. As with all things which have an impact on hospitals, it will be appropriately addressed in the Budget process. Regional directors and the central management of Health Department Victoria take into account all pressures of that nature in their negotiations with the 150 hospitals and with an equally large number of other publicly funded agencies. All those matters are specifically addressed. REVENUE BENEFITS FROM GAMING MACHINES Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumemmerring) - Will the Minister for Gaming advise the House what benefits for taxpayers will arise from the revenue from gaming machines? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1725 Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Gaming) - This week the government intends to introduce in the other place a Bill dealing with this issue. It is an early edition of the Bill rather than the final position, and I hope it will be read a second time next Thursday. Clearly, the Bill will relate to percentages dealing with the return to punters from gaming machines as well as returns to other beneficiaries in the terms expressed by Mr Van Buren. Money from gaming machines will go to the Hospitals and Charities Fund and will be used for a wide range of purposes in hospitals, mental hospitals and various charities. There will be a percentage allocation which is yet to be finalised but which is to be suggested in the Bill. There will also be a second component which will be a community support fund. The source of those funds will be, essentially, a percentage of between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent of the gross turnover of gaming machines in hotels. It shall be applied firstly to cover the costs of regulation - that is, the cost of establishing the Independent Gaming Commission - and providing, if necessary, additional resources for the Victoria Police. The money shall also be applied for the purposes of the commission to conduct research into the social effects of the new gaming policy and the provision of financial counselling services, the support of and assistance to families in crisis and programs for the prevention of compulsive gambling. Some funds will also be spent to the benefit of sport and recreation clubs which are not eligible or do not receive machines because they do not have sufficient passing traffic to justify being provided with machines. The balance of any funds remaining in the Community Support Fund would then be applied to the promotion of the arts and tourism. To recapitulate, there will be in the legislation a specific allocation, yet to be determined, which will go to the Hospitals and Charities Fund. In addition a proportion of the funds generated from the gaming machines in hotels will be used to cover the administrative costs and for the provision of funds for families in crisis as a result of compulsive gambling. There will be funds left over in the Community Support Fund both initially and when the fund matures in five to seven years in that initially there will be 10 ()()() machines and, eventually in the market, between 30 ()()() and 40 ()()() machines, and the ultimate beneficiaries of what is left in the fund will be the arts and tourism. It will not be the responsibility of the Independent Gaming Commission or the Office of Gaming to allocate those funds but to receive them and hand them to the appropriate department. Families-in-crisis funding will go to Community Services Victoria and the sport and recreation fund will go to the Department of Sport and Recreation. Funds relating to arts and tourism will go to the relevant departments for distribution. SALE OF LOY YANG B POWER STATION Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - I direct my question to the Leader of the Government. Hon. D. R. White - Every day you have a new seat! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1726 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN - Has the Minister seen the offer document prepared by investment bankers on behalf of the State Electricity Commission relating to the possible sale of Loy Yang B power station? If that document does not represent government policy, what action has the Minister taken against the officers who caused that document to be prepared? Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - It is disappointing to see that Mr Craige and Mr Smith have been separated in the new seating arrangements. They are the two gentlemen from Fast Forward. They are called the \ Dodgy brothers but I am not sure whether that is a Parliamentary expression. Hon. R. M. Hallam - You complained last week! Hon. D. R. WHITE - That is why I am hesitant to use it. In response to Mr Chamberlain, a draft information memorandum has been prepared by the SEC and circulated to people within the Parliamentary party who have been examining the future of the Loy Yang B power station and the SEC has produced that draft memorandum for discussion among officers in the SEC. It is quite clear that it is a very costly business for any person contemplating purchasing Loy Yang B to prepare a response, if and when it became available for sale. No-one would contemplate spending up to $7 million in proposing a bid unless there was a willing and able seller; therefore, nobody will be producing a response by way of a proposed offer to buy Loy Yang B until the information memorandum is supported by an introductory comment by the government in which it is stated that the government has reached a Cabinet decision to sell Loy Yang B. Until the government has reached that decision it remains a draft information memorandum which will not in itself produce a response from any willing and able purchaser. As I have previously indicated, that is a policy decision for the government which is under consideration and which will be decided upon at the latest in the Budget context. LATROBE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) - According to section 100 of the Water Act a Minister making an order to abolish or restructure a water authority must consult the Minister administering the Local Government Act if a council is affected. I ask the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs whether she was consulted regarding the establishment of the Latrobe Regional Water Authority; if so, whether she was made aware of the impact that the new authority will have on local councils and, in particular, the impact it will have on the City of Sale. Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - In answer to the first part of the question I advise that I was consulted. I was briefed and I was aware that there may be some impact or a perceived impact. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1727 VICTORIAN CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION Hon. LICIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West) - Can the Minister for Education and Training inform the House of the reasons for the announcement of the excellence awards for Victorian certificate of education (VCE) students in Victorian schools? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - As part of the launch of State Education Week I emphasised excellence in education and listed a number of things that are bemg done in schools, including increased monitoring of student progress in English and mathematics, the mentor scheme, the national Chinese curriculum project, Tekpaks and Telematics. Together with the Premier I also announced an excellence award for VCE students. The students will be nominated by school councils and I hope at an appropriate time there will be a function at Parliament House to honour the achievements of students who have completed their VCE with distinction. His Excellency the Governor has graciously indicated his willingness to participate in the awards, as the Governor of South Australia has done in that State in the past. I think it is appropriate that we recognise the achievements of students of excellence in the VCE. The breadth of studies in the VCE prOVides us with an opportunity to recognise excellence in many categories to remove the element of competition in excellence as students will be able to demonstrate their personal best in mathematics, English, arts or broad areas of curriculum. It will demonstrate that the VCE encourages excellence and will enable people to recognise the quality of students in our schools undertaking the VCE. As school councils themselves will play a part in nominating students of excellence, it will be recognised that the whole community is behind the VCE. I am sorry that some members do not seem particularly interested. If somebody could perhaps wake Mr Connard he could explain whether he and the opposition have an interest in excellence. MISSION TO SEAMEN Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - I ask the Minister responsible for Ports whether it is correct that the historic Mission to Seamen in Flinders Street is to be used as a child-care centre by the Board of Works and the Port of Melbourne Authority staff. Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer is no. LABELLING OF IMPORTED FOODS Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North Eastern) - I refer the Minister for Health to my question on 14 November last year when I referred to the labelling of imported foods with the name of the country of origin. I have now received a letter dated 15 May 1991 from her colleague, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, indicating it is the intention of the Minister QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1728 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 for Health to introduce legislation on this important issue. When will that legislation be introduced and will it be reciprocal with other States and the Commonwealth? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I anticipate that legislation will be considered by Parliament during the spring sessional period. On reciprocity, later today I shall be introducing a food amendment Bill which will address the creation of a national food authority, and which will also be seeking to put in place uniform standards for food quality right across the nation. By taking this step Victoria is leading the States. I look forward to Mr Evans's contribution to that debate in this sessional period as a preliminary to the passage of the Bill that he is seeking in the next sessional period. LAKESIDE HOSPITAL Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) - Will the Minister for Health indicate to the House the progress being made in upgrading the psychiatric services at Lakeside Hospital in Ballarat? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - The House will recall that last month I tabled a report by the board of investigation into Lakeside Hospital. At that time I foreshadowed a further report outlining the changes that would be made to ensure the delivery of modern standards of psychiatric care to people in the Wimmera-Central Highlands Region. It gives me great pleasure to inform honourable members of the release of a document Towards Excellence in Psychiatric Services for the Central Highlands and Wimmera Region. It is a most important document. Indeed it is the first of its kind in the State. The release of the report will pave the way for the introduction of modern models of psychiatric care to the region. Among the significant reforms contained in this document are: a move away from custodial care at Lakeside Hospital to provide a specialist focus on psychiatric illness and disability; and the delivery of service on a program basis - this means coordinating health services to patients to ensure comprehensive assessment, planning and continuity of care. Separate programs will recognise the different psychiatric care needs of children, adolescents, adults, their families, and psychogeriatric patients. In-patients and outpatient services will be linked with community care networks, which will mean fewer in-patient hospital beds and a greater focus on care in the community. Many existing patients will be relocated back into the community from which they came so that they can return to their original families or social networks. Lastly, there will be increasing public accountability to ensure that all patients receive appropriate care. I direct to the attention of the House the integration of psychiatric services with general health services in the greater Ballarat area. Recently I made comments publicly about this issue because I considered it a matter of urgency in the delivery of quality health services to the people of Victoria. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1729 A major thrust of the report is the proposed integration of services now provided at Lakeside Hospital with other health care providers in the region, which will mean linking existing psychiatric services into acute geriatric and community-based health programs. Making these changes will require extensive and continuing consultation with hospital staff, with service providers, with health care givers and unions, and also with the community which will, I believe, be receptive to this kind of move. All those discussions have commenced at Lakeside Hospital with the staff who will be employed in implementing the report. Negotiations will be continuing at all levels about the way the changes will occur and they will then be implemented over the next six to twelve months. The blueprint for the future of the delivery of psychiatric services in this region is, I believe, a most significant step forward, primarily to improve the quality of care for people in that region of the State. Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) - Mr President, given that the Minister for Health's answer was more appropriately a Ministerial statement, I move: That the Minister's answer and the report referred to therein be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting. Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - On a point of order, Mr President, if indeed I were seeking to make a Ministerial statement on this important matter I would have wanted to speak at far greater length. I kept my comments to the bare essence of the contents of a very important document. The PRESIDENT - Order! I listened intently to the Minister's statement, which constituted a major announcement upon developments on a matter that has been of considerable controversy and public importance. It was, on any view, in the nature of a Ministerial statement although, perhaps, somewhat shorter than a full Ministerial statement would have been. In those circumstances the motion is in order, and the Minister will have an opportunity when it is dealt with to expand in the way she would have desired to do if she had made a full Ministerial statement. The question is: That the Minister's answer and the report referred to therein be taken into consideration -- Hon. W. A. Landeryou - How do you do that without leave? The PRESIDENT - Order! If it is a Ministerial statement, a motion that it be dealt with on the next day of meeting can be moved without leave. Hon. W. A. Landeryou - Mr Knowles anticipated your ruling and moved the motion. Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - On a point of order, Mr President, Mr Landeryou is addressing the Chair but he is not in his place. Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU (Doutta Galla) - On a point of order, Mr President, that is not what should occur, even though the Clerks have told you that. Mr Knowles has QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1730 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 pulled a trick on you. If he wanted to raise a point of order he should have done so, but he did not do that. He proceeded to move a motion without the permission of the House and you,.Mr President, know it is out of order. No matter what the Clerks have told you about what the procedures should have been, Mr Knowles raised a point in a very friendly and fraternal way. He is abusing the forms of the House and you should not have heard him. Mr President, you should have made your ruling and then let Mr Knowles give notice. The PRESIDENT - Order! On the point of order, if a Ministerial statement had been made and someone wanted to debate it today, leave would have been required. If, however, the person merely moves that the statement be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting leave is not required, for the motion is in fact a notice of motion. I ruled that the answer, although not formally a Ministerial statement, was in the nature of a Ministerial statement having regard to the substance of the answer, to the question and the material it covered. I gave reasons for my ruling, which in fact arises from rulings previously given when announcements have been in the nature of Ministerial statements. The whole purpose of finding that an answer is in the nature of a Ministerial statement is to enable the answer to be treated in the same way as would occur if the announcement had been made by a formal Ministerial statement. The House cannot be deprived of its rights in debating an announcement of public importance just because the Minister has chosen to make the announcement by way of an answer to a question without notice. Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU - A member cannot anticipate what your ruling will be, and that is what Mr Knowles did. The PRESIDENT - Order! With respect, Mr Knowles moved a motion. It was then, having regard to the unusual nature, a matter for me to make a ruling on as to whether it was in order or not. As I found that the answer was an announcement in the nature of a Ministerial statement the motion was, in fact, in order. I now put the question: That the Minister's answer and the report referred to therein be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - On a point of order, Mr President, during the course of the debate Mr Landeryou accused Mr Knowles of abusing the processes of the House, and I ask that the accusation be withdrawn because it is an unwarranted reflection on his comments and the terms of the matter he raised. The PRESIDENT - Order! I do not regard the statement made by Mr Landeryou as reflecting upon Mr Knowles. Mr Landeryou was stating an opinion on the issue before the House which, as was obvious from his demeanour, he believed to be valid. Any honourable member is entitled to do that. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1731 I disagreed with Mr Landeryou by my ruling. It goes no further than that and I do not believe Mr Knowles could regard what was said as a reflection upon him; nor do 1. HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENTS Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - The Premier recently announced that three hospital redevelopments would be covered by the new Treasurer's guidelines for private participation and infrastructure. The first of these is the St Vincent's Hospital redevelopment requiring private funding of $120 million. Will the Minister for Health advise the House what the other two hospital developments are that were referred to by the Premier? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I thank the honourable member for her question and her specific reference to this exciting development at St Vincent's Hospital that has taken some time to come to fruition. It will enable the hospital to carry out -- Hon. M. T. Tehan - What about the other two? Hon. M. A. LYSTER - It will enable the hospital to carry out a refurbishment and rebuilding of the facility. After many years of excellent service to the people of this city and this State the physical fabric of the building of St Vincent's Hospital will be of the same quality as the quality of care that has always been given by the Sisters of Charity and their staff at that hospital. We are also well aware of the quality of the medical research that is undertaken at that hospital. It was with much pleasure that this government worked very closely with the Sisters of Charity to put together a financing proposal that will not only benefit St Vincent's Hospital and the Sisters of Charity but also will ensure the continuation of an excellent public facility which will be appreciated by the community of Melbourne and of the State for many years to come. Following the release last week by the Premier of the private sector infrastructure guidelines - guidelines t~at have been widely acclaimed by the private sector, the Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia Ltd and a number of other very important groups in the construction and investment field - we are looking forward to receiving further expressions of interest from the private sector in working closely with the government on important facilities that will meet the needs of the community over the next decade and well into the next century. In due course the House will be advised of those other developments. Until that time I am confident that the St Vincent's Hospital example will demonstrate clearly to the private sector the willingness of the government to be a partner in projects of this type. ASSISTANCE FOR AFRICAN REFUGEES Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West) - In view of the recent media reports relating to the dreadful plight of refugees from Ethiopia, will the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs advise the House on action being taken to assist people from that region of Africa to settle in Victoria? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1732 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - There are a number of refugees in Victoria who come from that part of Africa, specifically from Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan. Many of them have had particularly traumatic experiences and now require special assistance to help them settle successfully. One of the most fundamental prerequisites for successful settlement is an ability to communicate adequately in English. Women are a particularly vulnerable group among these people. A significant proportion of them, especially older women, are illiterate, perhaps for three reasons. The first is that education for women and girls is a relatively recent tradition in some of these countries. Secondly, in several of these countries there has been an oral language traaition that has only recently developed into the written form. The third is the disruption to people's daily life and schooling as a result of living in and fleeing from a war zone. Therefore it was believed there was a need to develop alternative and more accessible models of English language learning for newly arrived women. The Office of Ethnic Affairs, in a partnership project with the Ecumenical Migration Centre, the Adult Migrant Education Services and Springvale Neighbourhood House, is piloting a model to assist newly arrived and migrant women in the settlement process. The model integrates English language classes with support and information sessions for women, and particularly older women. A worker has been appointed to make contact with these women, link them into English language classes and follow up on their settlement needs and on providing information on identified issues. The project will be closely monitored because our receiving refugees from these countries means there will always be a small vulnerable group who will need special assistance with English and other requirements. If we can provide these women with what they need and learn from them it will make it easier for other groups to settle in the future. I am happy to say that something is being done which, I hope, is of real significance. SCHOOL TOILETS Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - In view of the responsibility for payment of costs to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board for Works for water closets and urinal flushing devices having to be met by schools from 1992, will the Minister for Education and Training advise the House of the level of additional funding to be provided to schools and explain what steps will be taken to ensure that flushing units not used by schools will not be included in the costs to schools? Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I thank Mrs Varty for her question and compliment her on her grasp of the principal issues of education. The matter is being attended to. In the changeover I have taken care to protect the budget of the Ministry of Education and Training in that respect and I do not foresee a problem in the transfer. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1733 MIDWIVES Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong) - I have received a number of representations from midwives in my electorate who have expressed concern about a proposal that has been put before the government to remove the ancient title of "midwife" from the statute book. Will the Minister for Health advise the House of the government's policy on the title of midwife? Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - If I recall correctly, the question asked by Mr Mackenzie is being put to midwives in the context of a broad review of the roles of nurses, the nurses council and the Nurses Act, and as a consequence there has been significant consultation with nurses throughout the State. There is also considerable interest throughout the country on matters such as whether there should be a federal register of nurses and if I recall correctly that is taking place in the context not only of seeking the views of Victorian midwives on the matter but also of seeking some sort of uniformity and agreement across the country. I am not aware whether a final recommendation has been made, but I shall investigate the current status of the consultation and inform Mr Mackenzie accordingly. NEEDS OF KOORI COMMUNITY Hon. G. A. SGRO (Melbourne North) - I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to inform the House of the steps taken by the government to address the needs of the large Koori community in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne. Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) - I thank Mr Sgro for his question and for his concern for the Koori community that lives within the boundaries of his electorate and nearby electorates. The area from Werribee through to Broadmeadows has a major metropolitan Koori population, made up of an estimated 300 families, or I()()() people, which makes it one of the highest concentrations of Koori people in Victoria. Until recently formal recognition of this large community was neglected, but the government is now in a position to assist in this area. FollO'~~'ing the self-initiated establishment of the Enmaraleck Association, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has been able to contribute more directly to the ongoing operations of the group with capital equipment to enhance the work experience program currently being carried out on a 4-acre plot in Broadmeadows. This program specialises in horticulture and woodwork, concentrating on the types of skills that may lead to ongoing work for Kooris. Negotiations are under way between Erunaraleck and the local T AFE college for a more structured approach to the work experience program. This would mean that Kooris who want to progress from the program will have the opportunity for more formal training, on-the-job supervision, and a shorter term apprenticeship. HEALm (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) BILL 1734 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 With specialisation in horticulture through the native seed propagation program, there is tremendous potential to open up employment prospects for members of the group in local council revegetation programs in the northern metropolitan area. The steps taken so far are obviously providing the basis for a better working relationship with local councils and the local TAPE college and, more importantly, greater employment and training prospects for the local Kooris. HEALTH (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) BILL Introduction and first reading Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health), by leave, introduced a Bill to further amend the Health Act 1958 and for other purposes. Read first time. FOOD (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health), by leave, introduced a Bill to amend the Food Act 1984 to enable food standards published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette by the National Food Authority automatically to have effect in Victoria and for other purposes. Read first time. DENTAL TECHNICIANS (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health), by leave, introduced a Bill to amend the Dental Technicians Act 1972 and for other purposes. Read first time. REPORTS OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, report of Supreme Court judges for 1989, together with supplementary report. Laid on table. Ordered to be considered next day on motion of Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yana). ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1735 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) presented Administrative Arrangements Orders Nos 89 to 91. Laid on table. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION WorkCare Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) presented report and financial statements for quarter ending 31 March 1991 given to Mr President pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1985. Laid on table. PAPERS Laid on table by Clerk: Broadmeadows College of Technical and Further Education - Report and financial statements for the year 1989. Coleraine and District Hospital- Report and financial statements for the year 1989-90 (two papers). Hawthorn Institute of Education - Report and financial statements for the year 1989. Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 - Minister's response to recommendations in Economic and Budget Review Committee's report upon Program Budgeting. Phillip Institute of Technology - Report and financial statements for the year 1989. Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes: Alexandra Planning Scheme - Amendment L17. Ararat (City) Planning Scheme - Amendment LU. Bendigo Planning Scheme - Amendments L21, L23 Part 2, L25 and L26 Part 1. Benalla (City) Planning Scheme - Amendment L19. Brunswick Planning Scheme - Amendments L2 and L6 Part 1. Bulla Planning Scheme - Amendments L41 and L45. Caulfield Planning Scheme - Amendment Ll1. Daylesford and Glenlyon Planning Scheme - Amendment L2. Dundas Planning Scheme - Amendment L3. Echuca Planning Scheme - Amendment LB. Frankston Planning Scheme - Amendment L24. Geelong Regional Planning Scheme - Amendment R45 Part 2. Gisborne Planning Scheme - Amendments L10 and L14. Huntly Planning Scheme - Amendment L20. Lillydale Planning Scheme - Amendment L74 Part 2. Melbourne Planning Scheme - Amendments L67 and L68. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1736 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 Mornington Planning Scheme - Amendment L31. Oakleigh Planning Scheme - Amendment L16. Prahran Planning Scheme - Amendment L22. Preston Planning Scheme - Amendment RL121. Ringwood Planning Scheme - Amendment LlD. Rosedale Planning &heme - Amendment L30. Sandringham Planning Scheme - Amendment L4. Talbot and Clunes Planning Scheme - Amendment L9. Tambo Planning Scheme - Amendment L41. Victoria - State Sections Planning Schemes - Amendment S15. Warmambool City Planning Scheme - Amendment L28. Yackandandah Planning Scheme - Amendment L6. State Training Board - Report and financial statements for the year 1989-90 Statutory Rules under the follOWing Acts of Parliament: Agricultural Chemicals Act 1958 -No. 85. Fertilizers Act 1974 - No. 83. Fisheries Act 1968 - No. 86. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 - No. 87. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958 - No. 82. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 - No. 84. Public Service Act 1974 - PSD No. 14. • • • • • Proclamations of His Excellency the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the follOWing Acts: Corporations (Victoria) Act 1990 -Section 98(2) - 22 May 1991 (Gazette No. G19, 22 May 1991). Courts (Amendment) Act 1990 -Section 13 -1 June 1991 (Gazette No. G18, 15 May 1991). Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Further Amendment) Act 1990 -15 May 1991 (Gazette No. G18, 15 May 1991). Ordered that reports and financial statements tabled by Clerk be considered next day on motion of Hon. HAD DON STOREY (East Yarra). PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 16 April; motion of Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health). Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - When one says "public drunkenness decriminalisation" quickly it flows quite smoothly off the tongue. Indeed if one asks why drunkenness should be a crime, that sounds sensible. However, when one looks at this Bill one must ask: why is it here and what is the possible justification for it? Why do we have it? The principal answer is: it is in the Attorney-General's ego. It is interesting to find the Attorney-General speaking of the international implications of this proposed legislation in Victoria. The Attorney-General's interest in Aboriginal affairs PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1737 is undoubted. His interest in the Muirhead inquiry and report I accept as indubitable but one harks back to the Attorney-General's splendid multi-media international performance on the in-vitro fertilisation legislation, that totally unnecessary and, in the end, undesirable legislation brilliantly characterised as such by the learned Governor in an address at the Royal Women's Hospital. It served as a vehicle for the Attorney-General to go on television internationally and it made him feel good but it did not do anybody else any good. Here we have his enthusiasm for an issue that is almost totally unrelated to Victoria dOminating his agenda. We have a Bill which is validly concerned with a tiny minority of a tiny minority - the Aboriginal population of Victoria is a small fraction of 1 per cent. The proportion of Aborigines who have drinking problems in Victoria would have to be a fraction of that small fraction of 1 per cent. Yet the Bill is designed to cope with the problem which is largely a problem of Aboriginal drunkenness. Even if that were its genuine intention, it would not fulfil the requirements. In New South Wales after public drunkenness was decriminalised in 1984 the number of people apprehended for being drunk increased by 40 per cent in the following year and by a further 21 per cent in the following year. Since decriminalisation in South Australia in 1984 the number of Aboriginal people detained for drunkenness has increased by 115 per cent and the number of other people detained has increased by 97 per cent. Much good that has done anybody. Much good it has done the unfortunate Aboriginal people who one would hope the Attorney-General was genuinely intending to benefit. We should look a little further at the Attorney-General's bona fides. One of the concepts in the Bill the opposition supports is that of the sobering-up centre. It is obviously better for a person who is drunk in a public place to be taken to a well-designed and well-run sobering-up centre than to an all-purpose police cell or to be left in the gutter. We already have four sobering-up centres. Commonwealth money is being devoted to sobering-up centres for Aborigines only. Four more are promised. It is said that this government will prOVide the recurrent funding for those centres. I do not believe that. It would be nice to have an assurance from the government that there really was to be adequate funding to support the centres. Let there be no mistake: the opposition is entirely sympathetic to dealing with the problems that drunken people obviously have and more particularly with all the problems that the Aboriginal people in Victoria and elsewhere have. We are in favour of sobering-up centres but we profoundly doubt the bona fides of the government. We doubt its ability to put up what is needed. I refer again to the undoubted fact that where some such good intentions as one hopes are behind this proposed legislation have given rise to decriminalisation in other States many more people end up in police cells. That is very likely to happen in Victoria because in effect this Bill gives the police greater powers and incentive to apprehend. The police do not have to feel that someone is worthy of a criminal charge. They are able to pick them up if it may be for their own good or possibly for the public's good, and they PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1738 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 then define the place in which to confine them which will least restrict their liberty. In all the circumstances, it will clearly be the police cells again. If we pass this Bill we will have taken a further sad step, one which I expect Mrs Mc Lean and Mrs Coxsedge to be extremely concerned about, when we are giving police the power to apprehend people and to hold them for 8 hours without a hearing, with no chance for somebody to clear their name. However, it occurs to me as I am speaking that, theoretically, somebody might manage to get hold of a solicitor at midnight or to wake up a judge and get a habeas corpus application before breakfast, but let us talk of reality. The reality is that there is a serious assault on people's civil liberties and a greatly increased discretion to be given to police, no matter how junior, who, in conceivable circumstances, might be tempted to use a power like that where they would not be held to account. There are specific provisions in the Bill for exempting the police from liability. So far I think I have described a wholly unhelpful and indeed dangerous piece of legislation. Let us just look at one or two other aspects. The police themselves are understandably concerned that this Bill prohibits investigation of other crimes by interrogation or simple questioning of people held in custody or held in, say, a sobering-up centre or wherever. Therefore, where an assault in domestic circumstances or any other crime is committed, if the person is apprehended under the provisions of this proposed legislation, the investigation of the crime will be correspondingly held up. It may be that, having a feeling for the priorities, the police very sensibly decide that they will stretch things a little and arrest the person for a more serious offence or, indeed, for another offence - because under this legislation public drunkenness is not an offence. That is not justice. That is not the way the system should work. But that would be a natural temptation because the police would have the person in custody and would be able to charge him or her. There is an additional danger that a person apprehended under this legislation will be released because the requirement is that as soon as a person ceases to be or appears no longer to be a danger to himself or to others, that person should be released. However, it may be extremely unhelpful for the individual to be released on a cold winter morning at 3 a.m. and launched into the cold of a Melbourne park, or a Melbourne gutter for that matter. Other problems exist. The police have difficult discretions to exercise and various difficult duties to perform. The person is given the right to make a telephone call, but it is not apparent that a clear duty is placed upon anyone to ensure that a telephone call can be made. That duty is not placed upon those running sobering-up centres or those in charge of police stations. One must infer from what can be described only as "plain English" that the policeman apprehending the drunken person will have to find as quickly as possible a telephone or a friend for the person to visit somewhere near wherever the drunken person was found. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1739 The proposed legislation is far from clear, and legislation that is far from clear rarely helps improve the law or the situations for the people affected by it. Hon. R. J. Long -It might not have to be done until after 7 hours. Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - To the extent that the legislation may encourage police to use its uncertainties to aid them in putting someone out of action for a while, the least one can say is that it is a threat to civil liberties. Honourable members should not forget that the legislation has been put forward because the Attorney-General -like any good Labor Party Minister these days - is desperate to appeal to minorities. In this case he is looking after a minority of a minority, but is still not managing to do it well. He is making the situation worse. I commend the Commonwealth government for putting up the money for sobering-up centres for Aborigines, but there is a long way to go before this Bill will be of any use to anyone. The detailed case against the legislation has been adequately made by the shadow Attorney-General in the other place and the opposition is on record as opposing the Bill for very good reason. I mention one other matter which was also referred to by the opposition spokesperson. The Bill has caused considerable apprehension to women and old people who do not think public drunkenness is something to be taken lightly. Public drunkenness often goes with strong, young men behaving in a disorderly and dangerous fashion, even if not intentionally violent. It may be like the young man who turned around and abused me the other day as I was driving along Flinders Street. As a way of directing his attention to his behaviour, I asked him to repeat what he had said. He then picked up something and threw it at me; I think it was ~ banana skin. An event so trivial to most of us is not trivial if it happens late at night to an elderly person or a woman alone. There are dangers enough for people walking in the city at night, but drunkenness adds a further dimension of fear. It is all very well to say that drunkenness is in itself often fairly inoffensive and that the situations which give rise to the offences which are being abolished such as being drunk in a public place and being habitually drunk and disorderly in a public place are not necessary to an offence of drunkenness, but it is surely taking expectations of citizens too lightly to suggest that drunkenness should in any way be sanctioned or regarded as an acceptable public state to be in. We must accept that even though drunkenness, like a lot of other bad habits, is something that is very difficult to avoid and may not be an addiction, it is a habit and therefore by definition something which people who succumb to it find difficult to avoid. Nonetheless, we are free agents who can arrange our lives to some extent to avoid the problems of our weaknesses. There have to be sanctions in order to dissuade people from' giving in to the weaknesses which can affect their functions as citizens. The alternative is to take to an extreme the generally acceptable proposition that what does not hurt other people should not be the subject of criminal law. That is a good, liberal principle which I accept and which the Liberal Party generally accepts. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1740 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 Drunkenness has consequences which are thoroughly undesirable in so many instances that it cannot be proper for the Parliament to send to the community the message that people should not care about exercising restraint. People who are drunk will be looked after at public expense either in police cells or sobering-up centres or will take up valuable police time in being escorted home or requiring another person to be found to look after them. That is not a responsible use of the Parliament's powers, nor is it proposing a responsible use of public money. The coalition parties oppose this legislation. Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West) - Being drunk in a public place first became a crime in England in 1606 and it was one of the pieces of legal baggage that the British brought with them when they came to Australia a couple of hundred years ago. The original idea behind the law was to keep the lower classes under control and sober so that those running the show could keep the wheels of industry turning - naturally to keep up their profits, Mr Guest, and to protect the sensitive nature of the upper classes. From the word go the law set stiffer penalties for the habitual drunk than for the occasional offender but in both cases only fines were imposed. Things changed in 1872, more than 250 years later, when imprisonment became an option and a distinction was made between being simply drunk and being drunk and disorderly, with the legal system coming down a lot heavier on the latter. Our State legal systems followed the same pattern with public drunkenness being viewed as a crime whereas it has never been illegal to get drunk in private. This remained the same for most of this century. Things started changing again in the 1970s when there was a growing recognition that there was an inherent class bias in what is a victimless crime and that whatever penalty the State cared to impose it neither stopped the offence nor offered any rehabilitation. Indeed, gaoling often reinforced the behaviour and was also a waste of scarce community resources. At the end of the 1970s new legislation was introduced in five Australian States to decriminalise drunkenness and three States - Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria - continue to view drunkenness in public as a criminal offence and impose both fines and gaol sentences. In Victoria we list three offences in the Summary Offences Act. Section 13 makes it a crime to be drunk in public and allows for detention by police while section 14 covers the offence of being drunk and disorderly. The habitual drunkard is defined in section 15 as having had three convictions for drunkenness in the preceding twelve months, which is much the same as in South Australia. We continue to treat people who are drunk in public as criminals, despite well-reasoned arguments that this approach is wrong-headed and wasteful of resources. I recommend that honourable members read the chapter by S. J. Egger entitled "Public Drunkenness" - a case history on decriminalisation - in a book edited by M. Findlay called Issues in Criminallustice Administration published by George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1983. We also make it a separate offence to be drunk and disorderly even though this is already covered by offensive behaviour legislation and is therefore a duplication. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1741 The laws against public drunkenness in Australia are of particular concern to Aborigines and should be of concern to us all. Reports issued by the Office of Crime Statistics in South Australia and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show a regular and depressing pattern where these laws are used far too often and much more severely against Aborigines and are the major weapons of discrimination. This is supported by the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, after three years of very intensive study. His findings should make all of us hang our heads in shame. Many of his findings relate directly to immediate measures to prevent Aboriginal deaths in custody but there are also many recommendations on what the commissioner refers to as the underlying issues - that is, issues which create a disproportionate number involved in the criminal justice system. Some of these do not apply to Victoria as they relate to the Commonwealth arena. The final report details the 1988 National Police Custody Survey which indicates that 28.6 per cent of those placed in police cells throughout Australia during the period of the survey were Aborigines. A significant 57 per cent of Aborigines were put in the slammer after being apprehended for public drunkenness compared with 27 per cent of the non-Aboriginal population. The Criminology Research Unit of the Royal Commission found that in April 1989 the national over-representation rate for Aboriginal adult prison receptions was 23.4. That translates into one Aboriginal adult being 23 times more likely than a non-Aboriginal adult to be sentenced to gaol. In Victoria the figure is a little below the national average. The rate of Aboriginal overrepresentation is 20.9 per cent. Of the three Aboriginal males who died in custody in Victoria, one was gaoled because we have the offence of public drunkenness and the other two were put in prison' for non-payment of fines for the same offence. Clearly we need a more humane approach to a social problem that we have created. We took away their land and their culture and left them with the lethal combination of grog and despair. Think for a moment of the sad parade of human beings that goes through our courts, of the individuals who cough up a few dollars in fines or waste a substantial part of their lives in gaol. Honourable members should bear in mind that a key recommendation of the Muirhead report is that public drunkenness should not be treated as a criminal offence. That is why, apart from all the other reasons that we have heard, this Bill should be supported. The Victorian Law Reform Commission brought down its own report on public drunkenness last year and also recommended decriminalisation. The proposed legislation before the House seeks to implement those recommendations in two ways: firstly, by protecting the rights of individuals and the community in general; and, secondly, by recognising that first and foremost drunkenness is a social problem and should be treated accordingly. No-one is saying that this is not of serious concern to people. For example, it is very sobering to learn that one in ten Australians is thought to be suffering from some degree of alcohol-related brain damage. Apart from the cost to families and the community, PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1742 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 according to Mr Peter Staples, the Federal Minister for the Aged, Family and Health Services, a conservative estimate of the yearly cash cost of alcohol and associated problems is $5 billion. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians puts the figure even higher at between $5 billion and $12 billion, which is quite staggering. In fact, one in five hospital beds is occupied by a patient with alcohol-related problems. Lost working days caused by industrial accidents and absenteeism are estimated to be as high as $6.7 billion a year alone, in addition to the cost of domestic violence and other quite serious social dislocations. That is not a record of which we should be proud. Australia has the highest level of alcohol consumption in the Western World. While it is true Australia's alcohol consumption has decreased in recent years, 15 per cent of males and 2 per cent of females in Australia are considered to be moderate to heavy drinkers; that is, they consume more than 50 milligrams of alcohol a day. According to Federal government figures and to other estimates nearly one-third of the population drinks too much or is at risk of doing so. We are talking about an awful lot of people. It is to be hoped our drinking habits are slowly changing. First and foremost drunkenness is a social and medical problem and is certainly not a criminal one. Violence and vandalism are often associated with alcohol abuse but in reality are separate issues. I know that a number of honourable members on the opposition side both in this House and in another place have protested that changing the laws in this area will put at risk the safety and security of our society. The point is that if offences are committed by someone who is drunk we have laws to deal with those offences. We will retain legislation in the form of the Summary Offences Act to deal with disorderly, riotous, insulting, indecent and offensive behaviour - that is, behaviour which adversely affects others. Jeff Kennett, please take note! A principle of our criminal jurisprudence is that criminal sanctions are imposed only where strong reasons exist to do so. Being drunk is not in itself sufficient. Another aspect of the Bill is that while being drunk in a public place will no longer be an offence an intoxicated person may still be apprehended by the police when that person is perceived to be a danger to himself or herself or to others, and the Bill does not affect the range of options available for dealing with an individual. The options have been drawn up to ensure as little restriction as possible on the person concerned. They include being released, being released into the care of another, being taken home, being taken to a sobering-up centre and, as a last resort, being taken to a lockup. Again, members of the opposition have complained about the possible ramifications of decisions that may be made by the police. But police will be supplied with very definite guidelines about dealing with these situations as well as being given additional training and will certainly be required to display a fair amount of sensitivity. A quite reasonable concern has been expressed about the consequences of taking a drunken person home where there is a possibility of domestic violence. In that situation I believe it would be inappropriate to allow a person to be taken home unless a great deal of care was exercised. Certainly the police must contact the family in any case. Rather PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATlON) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1743 than having to arrest people for drunkenness the role of the police can lean more towards community policing - that is far more positive than their usual adversarial role, which is mainly how they are seen by the public. There are many safeguards for those who are picked up by the police. There is a maximum detention period of 8 hours and an assurance that they cannot be charged with an offence or be investigated while detained. In fact, the notion of holding someone in a cell is seen as a last resort and it is certainly desirable that a number of sobering-up centres will be used instead. At present the latter approach is impracticable because under existing laws sobering-up centres do not have the power to hold people. This Bill will clarify the powers and duties of staff of sobering-up centres and take pressure off the police, while at the same time providing a place where people are able to sober up without the fear of further court proceedings or harassment of any kind. After being apprehended the intoxicated person is free to make a phone call and can be provided with medical assistance if necessary. In other words, the Bill proposes a humane approach to the issue of public drunkenness. While alcohol obviously continues to be an enormous problem in our society the continuing criminalisation of public drunkenness does nothing to change the situation. We all know from the experiences of prohibition that punitive legislation does not bring about changes in attitude but instead creates criminals. What we really need is sensible programs to combat alcohol abuse and deal with those suffering from its effects. The Bill seeks to do just that by taking the onus from the law and putting it back where it belongs - in the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) - The Bill contains issues that concern my electorate. Honourable members will be aware that my electorate encompasses two sobering-up centres in Swan Hill and Mildura. Firstly I shall examine the reasons why the Bill was introduced. Commonwealth funds have been made available to the State government to establish sobering-up centres. It is a sad reflection of what the government has done to tackle the alcohol problem in the Aboriginal community. The Bill 'is poorly drafted. It raises more questions than it answers. It does not address many of the problems of the excessive use of alcohol in our community. The opposition will not support the Bill. I regret that I cannot support it because I support the concept of sobering-up centres. Holding drunken people, regardless of whether they are Aborigines, is unsatisfactory and dangerous. The government is putting the cart before the horse with this legislation. The community and particularly the police are concerned that no accountability procedures for those persons appointed by the Minister are contained in the Bill. No body will be set up to investigate allegations of impropriety or assault by persons appointed by the Minister. Who will investigate cases where a person is unlawfully held? PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1744 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 The police have an internal investigation unit, but there is no provision for persons appointed by the Minister to be investigated. For example, a person who is taken ill when he or she is apprehended must either be taken to a hospital or be immediately attended to by a police medical officer. How will persons appointed by the Minister react to a similar situation? There is no procedure in the legislation to address that particular problem. I received a number of expressions of concern from municipalities within my electorate. A letter from Mr Barry Secombe, Chief Executive Officer of the Borough of Eaglehawk, of 6 March 1991 says: Dear Mr Best, At the direction of my council, I am writing to you in connection with the control of the consumption of liquor in public places. As you are well aware, this matter has been given much publicity in recent times and it would appear that the introduction of the Public Drunkenness (Decriminalisation) Bill could cause further concerns. My council wishes to express its extreme concern as to the apparent lack of ability for both municipalities and indeed, the police, to control the consumption of liquor in public places. This is a matter of great concern in the community and it is well known that on some occasions when liquor has been freely available in or near public places, rather unpleasant circumstances have arisen. Mr Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of Strathfieldsaye, in a letter dated 8 March 1991 says: Dear Ron, The council at its last meeting considered a circular from the Municipal Association of Victoria, advising of the Public Drunkenness (Decriminalisation) Bill, currently before Parliament, in particular adVising of the conflicts which might exist between the passing of the Bill and a number of local laws which address drunken behaviour in public places. As a result of council's considerations of this issue, I have been directed to advise as follows: That the council through its local members of Parliament request the government not to proceed with the legislation until such time as it holds discussions with the Mu~cipal Association of Victoria about the anticipated conflicts of interests which might occur between the State Act and local laws and secondly, advise the Minister that the Shire of Strathfieldsaye believes that drunkenness in a public place should still be an offence and as such, should not be decriminalised, in particularly having regard to the efforts undertaken by government to ensure drink-driving legislation. A relevant point! The Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of East Loddon in a letter dated 5 March 1991 says: Dear Mr Best, Council, at its meeting of 14 February 1991, considered correspondence relating to the Public Drunkenness (Decriminalisation) Bill to be considered in the autumn sitting of Parliament. Council resolved unanimously to oppose the Bill, objecting to the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. The Bill proposes that a member of the Police Force or an authorised person can apprehend any person believed on reasonable grounds to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs provided that that person (a) runs a significant risk of injury because of his or her inability to protect himself or herself; or PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1745 (b) is behaving in a manner that is likely to cause injury to himself or herself, another person or to cause loss of or damage to property. Council is also concerned at the effect the Bill will have on the introduction of local laws implemented to restrict the consumption of alcohol in public places. Those are relevant points. I shall later refer to a paper prepared by Linda Stevens for the Aboriginal communities of Victoria entitled Proposal for Alternative Facilities for Intoxicated Persons, and that is the real issue of the Bill. The third area about which I am concerned is the abrogation of police powers; the interpretation of "the use of reasonable force"; and the lack of protection when somebody is released into the care of another person. Clause 14(1) provides for the appointment of an authorised person by the Minister. It states: The Minister may, by instrument, appoint such number of authorised persons as are necessary for the purposes of this Act. I am concerned when there is an abrogation of police power to persons appointed by the Minister. Police are trained in the law through the investment of community dollars to handle difficult and unsafe circumstances. To allow social workers or people with good intentions to be plucked from the community and given responsibility to apprehend and take into custody pe0ple they consider are drunk is a dangerous course to take. Clause 5(3) says: A person may be apprehended under sub-section (1) ... Subsection (1) provides that: A member of the police force or an authorised person may at any time without warrant apprehend any person in a public place whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds is tinder the influence of alcohol or a drug. I want to know what "whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds" really means. It is an all-embracing statement and gives great latitude to an unskilled person. By placing these powers into the hands of people other than police officers Parliament is moving into a grey area because the effect may be that some people may lose their liberty. The second aspect about which I am concerned is the use of reasonable force. Clause 6 states: A member of the police force or an authorised person may use reasonable force to effect the apprehension of a person under section 5(1). What is reasonable force? Reasonable force by a bouncer may be completely different from reasonable force by a policeman or a person from Community Services Victoria or a social worker. There are degrees of reasonable force. The legislation raises the question of interpretation. When can a person apply reasonable force? People untrained in the law would not know. During the past year Parliament passed legislation that made bouncers accountable for their actions. They now have to apply for licences because of the concerns the community had about the behaviour of some bouncers. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1746 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 The third aspect of reasonable force relates to the provisions available to investigate authorised persons who may have used unreasonable force. Police are accountable for their actions, but no mechanism has been established to ensure that persons appointed by the Minister are accountable for their actions. The most serious flaw in the drafting of the legislation is contained in clause 7. The clause is drafted in such a way that it does not allow any real protection when a person is released into the care of someone else. There are no guidelines as to the character of the custodial person to ensure the safety of the apprehended person. Clause 7(1)(a) states: After apprehending a person under section 5(1) the member of the police force or the authorised person may - (a) remove the pe~son from the public place and release him or her from custody; That is fine, but what if the person dies after he has been relocated? If a person who is drunk in the City Square is relocated to the Exhibition gardens and dies there, whose responsibility is that? The person may have been asleep and secure in the City Square, but when he is awoken and relocated he may choke on his own vomit and die in the Exhibition gardens. That issue is not covered in the clause. Clause 7(1)(b) states that the member of the Police Force or authorised person may: find a person who is willing and able to look after the person and release him or her from custody'into the care of that other person; Again that subclause raises the issue of the custodial person. What if the person released from custody is partly intoxicated but is released into the custody of a homosexual or a rapist? Again, no standards are applied to the custodial person. Clause 7(c) states that such a person may: take the person to the place where he or she is permanently or temporarily residing and there release him or her from custody; That raises an issue of major concern. A person who is drunk may go down to the pub and may be returned to a violent domestic situatio~ which may have been the reason he was at the pub in the first instance. I am concerned at the poor drafting of the proposed legislation. It has not addressed the real reason for the introduction of the measure: a reaction to the Muirhead Royal Commission. The government is not really solving the problems of decriminalisation of public drunkenness and the taking of Aboriginal persons into custody. I refer now to a paper prepared by Ms Linda Stevens entitled Proposal for Alternative Facilities for Intoxicated Persons. The paper was prepared in March this year specifically to address the problems of Aboriginal people who become intoxicated. At page 21 of the document it is stated: While there is no uniform collection of statistics for drunkenness arrests and detentions around Australia, data from various sources show that numbers of people taken into custody have risen in all jurisdictions over the past few years ... PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1747 Substantial increases in detention rates have occurred in States and Territories where drunkenness has been decriminaiised and this has led to criticism by various groups. Various explanations are offered for these increases, including improved reporting of admissions by various agencies, and a greater willingness on the part of police to detain persons under drunkenness provisions which do not require preparation of cases, than for offences under other Acts. On page 22 the paper states: Aboriginal people are apprehended at a greater rate than non-Aboriginal people in all those jurisdictions where records are kept of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal detainees. In South Australia, Aboriginal males are 100 times more likely to be detained under the Public Intoxication Act than are non-Aboriginal males... Clearly there is a gross imbalance in arrest rates as between the races and this imbalance mU.3t be addressed when looking at decriminalisation of drunkenness. In the discussion that took place in the preparation of this document - and I will quote a small section of it: Only two jurisdictions (New South Wales and the Northern Territory), however, have a well-developed program of providing alternative facilities to the police cells to which police and others can take intoxicated people whom they apprehend for care and protection. That is exactly the problem Victoria faces because it has only two centres, and under this proposed legislation the government is trying to decriminalise the whole issue of public drunkenness when it is really a matter of introducing sobering-up centres for Aborigines that is the issue. On page 23 of the document it states: The form of decriminalisation by which the offence of public drunkenness is removed but intoxicated people continue to be detained in the police cells achieves only part of society's goals in decriminalisation. It does not enhance the quality of life of the people affected, as decriminalisation is intended to do. Facilities which provide alternatives to the police cells are, however, very expensive. In the Northern Territory, for example, it costs substantially more to care for a person overnight in a sobering-up shelter than to care for a prisoner in a correctional institution. The financial implications of a policy of prOViding such alternative facilities are, therefore, substantial. Further on it says: Finally, this paper demonstrates that, in each Australian jurisdiction which has decriminalised public drunkenness, the total number of apprehensions without arrest and detentions for public drunkenness has increased beyond the levels observed prior to decriminalisation. This proposed legislation does not do anything to address the problems that the people in the Swan Hill and Mildura areas face. I visited the police at Swan Hill and Mildura and I also visited the Aboriginal cooperative at Swan Hill and held discussions with Ned Shannon, administrator; Doug Nicholls, who is the cultural adviser; and Abraham Baksh and Tony Kirby, who have both done courses on the administration of sobering-up centres. They very much reflect the concerns and wishes of the local Aboriginal people. Their objectives are quite simple in that they apprecia.te the stigma that is unfortunately associated with drunkenness, particularly drunkenness of Aborigines. They are proactive PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1748 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 in their actions in trying to solve the problem and restore some pride to the people of the Swan Hill community. Some of the figures that have been presented and some of the pictures that have been painted suggest that Aboriginal drunkenness is a disease and the numbers of Aborigines arrested compared to whites is substantial. Eddie Dalton, the senior sergeant at the Swan Hill police station, conducted a survey from I October 1990 to 15 March 1991. Of 116 arrests for drunkenness only 19 were of Aborigines. Of the 19 charges that were laid, 9 were associated charges and 6 of those charges were repetitive. One fellow had offended 3 times, another fellow twice, and 9 of those associated charges were associated with resisting arrest, bad language or whatever. Of the 4 that were left, 3 were actually kept in the cells. At those discussions with Ned Shannon and Doug Nicholls of the Swan Hill Aboriginal cooperative, they said that the sobering-up centre is used only some six or seven times per month by Aborigines. That is of concern to me because I would prefer to see it used far more often. I would like to see the opportunity where, as is the case in Mildura, instead of taking Aborigines into custody, the police have a two-way radio system so that they do not touch the Aborigines; they call the cooperative which sends a worker in a van to assist Aborigines who are drunk, take them home, shower and feed them, and let them sleep. The program and the sobering-up centre in Mildura are working extremely well. The police and the Aboriginal cooperative work very well together and they ensure not only the safety of the Aborigines but also that there is no opportunity for Aborigines to be taken to police cells and no potential for problems to arise. As I said at the outset of this debate, although I do not disagree with the thrust of the Bill, I am very concerned at the way it has been drafted. I totally support sobering-up centres. I have seen at first hand how they have worked and the benefits of sobering-up centres in our community, but I am concerned at the way in which the Bill has been drafted to decriminalise drunkenness. It is tying together two problems that are quite separate. That is the issue that needs to be addressed - not the decriminalising of drunkenness but the way we handle those people who are unfortunately drunk. Municipalities have raised with me their concern about the effect that this legislation may have on their local laws. On three Saturday nights last month I took the opportunity to have a good look around the streets of Bendigo with the police. I travelled with them from 11 p.m. one Saturday until 6 o'clock the next morning. I passed on to the Bendigo City Council my concern regarding what I saw and arranged for a further inspection on the following Saturday night by the councillors and myself which took place between 12 midnight and 4 a.m. The next Saturday night I went out by myself again. I am concerned at the level of drunkenness in our streets and that when young people cannot gain access to discos and nightclubs they walk around the streets drinking with stubbies in their hands. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1749 I am concerned at the lack of respect shown to the police and at the antisocial behaviour of a lot of young people. This Bill does not address the concerns of the councils. It does not solve the problems of councils or municipalities and, in particular, it does not solve the problem of drunkenness in our community. I totally support the provision of sobering-up centres but unfortunately I cannot support this Bill. Hon. JEAN McLEAN (Boronia) - I have listened very carefully to the arguments of Mr Guest and Mr Best about the proposed legislation and, while I agree with the importance of having sobering-up centres, I cannot see how keeping on the statute book an antiquated and unjust law can be justified, because we still are left with the problem of drunkenness. The Bill is not supposed to be about removing the problem of people drinking; it is about whether or not we should make public drunkenness a crime. The Bill that has been introduced addresses many of the problems that have been mentioned by members of the opposition, including the fact that persons who are drunk and are a threat to themselves or to anybody else are apprehended. I suggest that has been proven over many years. I have spoken to many friends and constituentS about the provisions of the Bill since its introduction into Parliament. In every case they agreed the Bill should be enacted and that the crime of pUblic drunkenness should be removed from the statute book. It was fascinating to discover how many of the males I spoke to had been arrested over the years for public drunkenness. In almost every case they were arrested and convicted. In the other cases they were either taken home by the police or their friends were asked to take them home or to call someone to pick them up. As there are approximately 22 000 arrests for drunkenness each year in Victoria it is clear that the police do not often use the alternative method and take them home. Instead the people are arrested and thrown into the cells, clogging up both police stations and the courts for no good reason. As Mrs Coxsedge said earlier in the debate, the law is absolutely antiquated and unnecessary in dealing with the problems caused by the consumption of alcohol. The opposition has suggested Victoria does not have sufficient sobering-up centres at present. Even if the Bill is passed we will not know how many sobering-tip centres are required. Four centres will be established for the Koori community and the situation will be monitored to ascertain whether more or fewer people are apprehended. Until the Bill is enacted no-one knows how many sobering-up centres will be required. In no way will society be less protected by removing the crime of public drunkenness. If people create a nuisance they will still be apprehended. The only difference will be that people will not have criminal convictions recorded against their names. If a law creates an unjust situation, it should be removed and an alternative should be found. The Bill is an attempt to bring about a more just position. It is important that alternatives are found when a justice system is failing. That is certainly the case for the Aboriginal community. The Koori people comprise 1.1 per cent of the Australian population but represent 14.3 per cent of the prison population. Aborigines are 29 times more likely than PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1750 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 white people to be gaoled for public drunkenness. It seems inconceivable to me that 98 per cent of the population is unable to find a solution to the disgraceful neglect we have shown to our indigenous people. The recent Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found that the major contributing factor of incarceration is the disadvantaged and unequal position of Aboriginal people in the Australian community. The report states: The review which I have made ... of the deaths which I investigated has shown that all but one of the deaths was potentially avoidable either because with more enlightened laws or better working of the justice system the person would not have been in custody at all, or because greater care or observance of instructions about the custody of prisoners might have avoided the occurrence of the death. The recent Royal Commission is the fifth such inquiry, so it is understandable that there is still much scepticism among the Koori community as to whether anything will change. The deaths of three Aboriginal people in police custody in Victoria were raised in the report. All were apprehended as a result of the current antiquated laws on public drunkenness. James Archibald Moore died as a result of pontine haemorrhage in the Swan Hill District Hospital after custody in the Swan Hill police station; Harrison Day died as a result of an epileptic fit in the Echuca Hospital after custody in the Echuca police station; and Arthur Moffatt died as a result of a hypoglycaemic reaction of diabetic origin in the Warragul police station. A significant percentage of Aborigines have diabetes and other diseases flowing from the European colonisation of this country and the food we introduced into the Aboriginal diet, as well as the poor health care' provided to the Koori community. I shall provide further details about the case of Arthur Moffatt. In 1987 a friend of mine from Queensland contacted me because his uncle Arthur Moffatt had died in gaol in Victoria and he wanted to discover more about what happened. I made inquiries and was told that Arthur Moffatt was found on the platform of the Warragul railway station, was taken into custody by the police, had choked on his own vomit and died in a police cell, and that he had been drunk at the time. Unfortunately the truth was much more tragic and terrible than the limited information I was given. Arthur Moffatt had become ill while travelling on a train. When the train arrived at Warragul he was dumped unceremoniously on to the railway station. The stationmaster took a look at him and called the police instead of an ambulance. The police came, took a look at him and agreed he must be drunk and drove him to the Warragul police station. The police contacted the ambulance station, and an attendant came and had a perfunctory look at Arthur Moffatt and said, "Yes, he is drunk". Without any medical attention he was locked up. A sick and lonely man was left to die in a police cell. There are dozens and dozens of cases where, had such people had white skins and belonged to the middle class, the first thing that would have happened would be the calling of an ambulance. Certainly police officers would not decide to immediately throw into a cell a white middle-class person lying unconscious on a railway station. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1751 Hon. R. J. Long - Are you suggesting that an ambulance should be called every time an Aborigine is involved? Hon. R. A. Mackenzie (to Hon. R. J. Long) -She's not suggesting that at all. Hon. R. J. Long - She is. Hon. JEAN Mc LEAN - I believe when anyone is found unconscious on a railway station some further action is required. Hon. R. J. Long interjected. Hon. JEAN McLEAN - You might be found unconscious on a railway station because you knocked your head. How would you like people to say, "You silly old drunk", and have you carted off to a cell? In such circumstances an ambulance should be called; and if police officers are called first, an ambulance should then be called to check whether the person is drunk or unwell. Koori friends of mine have told me of many instances of police violence and of the contempt and indifference with which Kooris !ll"e treated. If anyone doubts that we live in a racist society they have only to read the report of the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Unfortunately our Police Force reflects that racism; and for many years the relationship between the Police Force and the Koori community has been based on strong feelings of mistrust. Another incident I recall happened at the Royal Hotel in Gertrude Street in 1987 or 1988, when police officers organised a drug raid. They cordoned off the hotel where nearly all the customers were Kooris. Police officers forced all the Koori women up against one wall and proceeded to strip search them in front of everyone in the pub, including the men. This disgraceful episode lasted for 2 hours, but in the end very few people were arrested and no drugs were found. There was no public outcry -- Hon. R. J. Long - Did you see this? Hon. JEAN McLEAN - I knew many of the people in that pub, yes. There was no public outcry about that travesty of justice. Again, I believe the situation would have been very different had it occurred in a more up-market pub frequented by middle-class whites - although for that very reason such an episode would not occur in those surroundings. Luckily the problems caused by the police harassment of the Koori community are now being addressed by community justice panels, the Aboriginal police liaison office and the staff of sobering-up centres. As Mr Best said, in some areas police officers now ask members of the Koori community to transport Kooris who are drunk to sobering-up centres. Recently I visited the Northcote sobering-up centre, which is run by Mr Bindi Williams. The treatment received by people in such centres is much better than any treatment they have received after being picked up and thrown into cold, damp cells. Kooris in sobering-up centres are now given a warm comfortable bed and a medical checkup, if PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1752 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 need be, to prevent a recurrence of what has often happened in police cells. Detoxification, rehabilitation and job training programs have been established, and Kooris can take advantage of such facilities. I have many times heard members opposite talk about the revolving door criminal justice system in Victoria, claiming that very soon after an offender is thrown into gaol he or she is quickly out again. For Kooris. the revolving door moves in the opposite direction: no sooner are they out of gaol than they are picked up and thrown back in! One of the major effects of removing the offence of public drunkenness from the statute book will be that few if any members of the Koori community will be found in our gaols; and if that is the only effect the Bill has its passing will be well worth while. Mr Best only briefly alluded to the fact that drunkenness has many underlying causes, which can be tied, firstly, to the problems caused by unemployment. Up to 90 per cent of the Koori coinmunity is unemployed compared with the already dreadful figure of up to 10 per cent general unemployment throughout the country. Most of those 90 per cent will end up as chronically unemployed, so if we are seriously worried about the problems caused by public drunkenness we must begin addressing its underlying causes. One also sees evidence of the problems caused by loss of self-esteem and loss of independence not only among the unemployed Koori community but also amongst the minority of white people who end up alcoholic and homeless. We will not cure any of those problems merely by adopting a deliberate policy of arresting 22 000 people a year for the offence of public drunkenness. The Bill provides that when a person who is drunk is apprehended he or she may be released into the care of another, taken home or taken to a sobering-up centre. Telephone calls may be made to ensure that there is no danger that an intoxicated man, for example, will bash his wife if he is allowed to return home rather than being taken to a police station or a lockup. Unfortunately most men who bash their wives are not picked up by the police - but that problem and others are way outside the realms of this Bill. The Bill is important because it addresses some of the recommendations made by the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is important that the provisions of the Bill are not used to harass young people - although that is unlikely because of the provisions applying to the apprehension and detention of people who are drunk in public. It is nonsensical to say that in certain circumstances police will simply call out to a stranger, who may be a potential rapist or a homosexual, and ask that person to take the drunk person home. Such a suggestion is insulting to our police officers. These days when a group of young people go out one person in the group stays sober so that he or she can safely drive the others home; so it could well be that a police officer would ask that person to take responsibility for his or her mates. Certainly police officers would ensure that the person asked to help is known to them or to the person who is drunk; they would not ask just anybody whether he or she would take a drunk person home. It is outrageous to suggest that our police officers are so devoid of logic and commonsense that they would show such a lack of thought in their dealings with people who are drunk in public. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1753 Hon. R. A. Best -It might be someone they met at a pub and feel they befriended; you don't know. Hon. JEAN McLEAN - The training that will be undertaken under the provisions of the Bill will address that problem quite adequately. One success story concerns Johnny Morgan who I met at a sobering-up centre. An article in the 5 May 1991 edition of the Sunday Age states: Johnny Morgan is, on paper, one of the State's most active lawbreakers. He has been arrested up to a dozen times a year for almost two decades. His crime? Being drunk in public. He was, he says, "one hell of a drunk". Mr Morgan, 40, who is now living at a sobering-up centre at Northcote is not alone. More than 22 000 people a year are charged with public drunkenness in Victoria. Many of them are alcoholics whose main "crime" is an addiction to a legal drug. They could face a $1000 fine and a year's gaol. That $1000 fine is very important to consider particularly in the Koori community as well as in the poorest and most disadvantaged European communities whose members are continually being picked up but have no way of paying fines, and who are thrown into gaol. They receive no assistance, training or detoxification. Often they are subject to the sort of violence that occurs in our gaols. There is absolutely no value in putting people in gaol for the non-payment of fines resulting from drunkenness because they only drink the sort of legal substances pushed very strongly on television advertisements and in films, and which is very much part of our society, whether individuals agree or otherwise. The major portion of the 22 000 now being arrested will be able to return to their h()mes or places of living without any charges being laid, and with medical or other assistance being rendered. The minority will have to stay in police cells or in some other place that can be found until they sober up. The Bill is vitally important if we are to be a just and humane society. There is no purpose in legislators supporting Bills that they know will not work simply because they have not arrived at a perfect solution to all problems associated with drunkenness. This Bill goes a long way towards addressing the problems dealt with by the Muirhead inquiry. It is in line with the laws in South Australia, New South Wales and the Northern Territory where public drunkenness is no longer a crin1e and where the relevant laws have not turned those States on their heads. To my knowledge, because public drunkenness is no longer a crime there, no-one has been given into the custody of murderers or rapists. Offenders are sent home and the system appears to work well in those States. It is a pity the opposition has seen fit to oppose the Bill. It is not a money Bill or a Bill that supports unionism. It does not introduce socialism. Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - It is about justice. Hon. JEAN McLEAN - It introduces justice and reform. It is more than 200 years overdue. I ask the opposition to reconsider its position and to support the Bill so the government can halt the injustices that are occurring every day on our streets because of the prosecution of the crime of public drunkenness. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1754 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 Hon. R. J. LONG (Gippsland) - In past years the House has heard much from Mrs Coxsedge and Mrs McLean about civil liberties but today it has heard not one word about the invasion of civil liberties inherent in the Bill. Australian common law says it is illegal for anyone to be restrained physically or to be arrested. However, the two exceptions to the rule are, firstly, because a person is accused of an offence he must be brought before a court to be dealt with within a reasonable time. He can be arrested for that purpose and if that does not happen, the Supreme Court has prerogative writs to enforce that position. Secondly, a person can be arrested if he has been duly convicted of some offence and if he must suffer punishment for it. Some of the purposes of the Bill, as contained in clause 1, are: ... to repeal offences relating to drunkelUless in public places; and to provide for the apprehension and care of people found in public places under the influence of alcohol or a drug. The Bill empowers a member of the Police Force or an "authorised person" -and we have not been told who that may be, it could be Tom, Dick or Harry - to arrest anyone who they believe on reasonable grounds is under the influence of alcohol or a drug. One can be arrested only if, according to the provisions of clause 5(2): ... the member of the police force or the authorised person believes on reasonable grounds that the person- (a) rims a significant risk of injury... or (b) is behaving in a malUler that is likely - (i) to cause injury to himseU or herseU ... The Bill also provides that the police can search a person and, in any event, must release that person, according to the provisions of clause 13: ... at the end of 8 hours or at any earlier time that there ceases to be reasonable grounds ... that he or she is under the influence of alcohol or a drug... The Bill is racist in character because if the person happens to be an Aborigine, the government - with funds fed to it from the Federal arena - has provided for sobering-up centres - Hon. G. A. Sgro - They will accept you if you want to go there. Hon. R. J. LONG - If the person is not an Aborigine there is no sobering-up centre because your government is so broke you cannot afford to build one! The Bill may set out to achieve a laudable purpose but it will not work. If I were a dishonest policeman - thank goodness there are not too many of them in Victoria - I could use the Public Drunkenness (Decriminalisation) Bill for a dishonest purpose. If someone were annoying me I could fix them up; I could just say, "You were drunk" and then cart that person off and put him or her into a police lockup. Hon. G. A. Sgro - That has happened in the past! Hon. R. J. LONG -It has, and you are encouraging it under this Bill! As I said, I could cart anyone off and put him or her into a lockup. Under the present law a person who is carted off to a police lockup must be charged and so is given a chance to appear PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1755 before a court and plead innocence. The proposed legislation provides no such opportunity because one is not even charged. That is where the whole thing is wrong. As I said, the provisions of the Bill could be used dishonestly. The point I make is that under the common law one must be charged, but under the proposed legislation one need not be charged. One could be improperly arrested and locked up and have no rights. I would go so far as to say that it may be argued - I am not an expert in this field - that one could not even apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - There is no alternative now but to lock someone up. The Bill gives another alternative! Hon. R. J. LONG -It is interesting that the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, took a while to wake up to what the Bill was proposing would be done, but at least it has now woken up. In a letter printed in the Age of 11 May 1991, Mr Ron Merkel, QC, the President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties is quoted under the heading, "Police will have unchecked power against defenceless". The heading of the letter Mr Merkel has written is a perfectly proper and exact description of the effects of the Bill. Mr Merkel says: The Victorian government's proposal was designed to ensure drunk persons were either taken home or to sobering-up centres and only as a last resort gaoled for up to eight hours. While one may suspect the opposition's commitment to this reform, it was quite wrong of the Attorney-General to label opposition criticism as "simplistic and red-necked". The Police Association has made it quite clear that police are not about to be "taxis for drunks". The government has no funds in the foreseeable future to establish the sobering-up centres which are the centrepiece of the reform. That is what Mr Merkel says, "the centrepiece of the reform" is "the sobering-up centres". He goes on to say: As a consequence the so-called "last resort" of gaoling individuals who had not committed an offence will become the first resort under the proposed legislative scheme. That is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. I agree with Mr Merkel when he says the Bill will make the gaoling of individuals who have not committed an offence a first resort. I cannot support the Bill, particularly as it is drafted and as its provisions will be carried out. I wholeheartedly support the opposition in its opposition to the matter. Hon. G. A. SGRO (Melbourne North) - The Public Drunkenness (Decriminalisation) Bill is an attempt to mend the damage that has been done in this State over the past few years, especially to Aboriginal people. After I arrived in Australia, I went from the Bonegilla migrant camp to the township of Cobram where I worked for nine months. I remember that in the summer of 1953, although I was not considered a white man - I was called quite a few names at that time - I was allowed to go and have a glass of beer in a pub in Cobram, near the New South Wales border. However, the Aboriginal people in the town were not allowed to come to the pub and have a glass of beer with me. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1756 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 I used to break the law and take the beer to my Aboriginal friends in the town and have a drink with them. Other people in the town used to buy grog at cheap prices and sell it to the Aboriginal people for two or three times what they bought it for. They knew very well that the Aboriginal people would get drunk and that they used to finish up in gaol. For years and years that was allowed to happen. The Europeans in this country have much to answer for in the way that they have treated the Aboriginal people. The proposed legislation will not prohibit Victorians from drinking and even getting drunk but at least people will no longer just be thrown into gaol if they are drunk. Mr Long said that people who are drunk can be taken to gaol. I ask: what happens to anyone who goes to gaol? Many people commit suicide; some hang themselves. That is what has happened in the past: hundreds of people have committed suicide because the law has allowed police officers who have seen a drunk on the road to take the drunk to gaol instead of to a sobering-up centre. As a result, drunks become criminals. As I said, the Bill is an attempt to protect people who are drunk from becoming criminals. I have said many times before that I have seen many white people who are nuisances when they are drunk. Many times I have seen people drunk in this place; I have seen people rotten drunk in this House, but they have not been charged by anybody. However, not far from this place, in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, I have seen people who have been drinking in the pubs taken away and put into gaol because, according to some people, they were a nuisance. As a result, they were charged and became criminals and most of them have been Aboriginal people. The white people of Australia should be ashamed of the way they have treated Aboriginal people over the past 200 years. Through the Bill, the Minister responsible for the legislation and other members of the government are trying to indicate that people can have a few beers but that they must be educated about the effects of drinking. Until now drunks have been thrown into gaol and that did not help them a bit; neither did it help the rest of the society. It did not help police officers, either, who have other things to do than to charge people who are drunk. Members of the opposition would do much better if they allowed the proposed legislation to be passed. The government is attempting to educate people about the effects of drunkenness. Honourable members do not need to look anywhere else except at the weekend television news programs. Many of our people are slaughtered on our roads because they do not know how to drink beer, wine or spirits. What we must do in this State and in this country is try to educate people, especially our younger people. Hon. W. R. Baxter - You won't do it through this Bill! Hon. G. A. SGRO - But what have we done until now? All the prohibition in the world has not helped! Every weekend people are being slaughtered on our roads. No-one has come up with a better solution than is provided by the Bill. Members of the opposition were in government for many years and did nothing. They could have amended the proposed legislation but they have not. Members of the opposition just want to throw the Bill out the window because they say it is no good. As I said, if PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1757 someone has a couple of glasses of beer and a police officer or anyone else wants to say that that person is drunk, he or she can be taken away or put in gaol and then becomes a criminal. Some people can handle liquor better than others. We should be ashamed of the way we have treated the Aboriginal people. Rather than try to educate them on the abuse of liquor, we throw them into gaol. These people cannot handle the police interrogation and so on, and many of them commit suicide purely because they cannot handle the police and the gaol scene. The Bill is not perfect, but something had to be done. The community was screaming out for something to be done in this country and also worldwide. Even the United Nations believes Aboriginal people in this country are like second 1758 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 window. Let us make a new law and see if it works. If it does not, after a time we can amend the law as it is being presented here tonight. Of course, it will not be passed here tonight because the goody-goodies will not accept the Bill. I say"goody-goodies" because opposition members would rather see people who have had too much to drink charged as criminals rather than being allowed to attend sobering-up centres. Even among my friends, I have seen people get drunk, but they are not criminals. They are ordinary people who perhaps went to a function and had a few too many glasses of beer or wine. The Bill tries to amend the mentality that these people are criminals. I am really upset by the fact that those people who accuse others and who want to make laws about others often are guilty themselves. Many times they are the ones who should have been in gaol. I strongly believe we have been unjust to the Aboriginal people in this country for many years because of the crime of drunkenness. The Bill will not fix everything but at least it will allow the indigenous people in this State to have a chance. Hon. W. R. Baxter - Why can't we treat everyone equally? Hon. G. A Sgro - That is right, Mr Baxter, and I have a question for you: if you finish up in a gaol tonight because you are drunk, how would you feel to be charged as a criminal? Mr Long, if you have a few beers tonight and finish up in the lockup, do you want to be charged as a criminal? Forget about the Aborigine, are you a criminal if you have a few drinks? Because at the moment you will be charged as a criminal. Hon. W. R. Baxter - You won't be charged just because you are drunk. Hon. G. A. SGRO - They will charge you and keep you in gaol as a criminal. Hon. J. V. C. Guest - Mr President, I direct you attention to the state of the House. QuONDl formed. Hon. G. A. SGRO - As I was saying, if Mr Long and Mr Baxter or anyone else wants to get drunk it is their business; it is not my concern but -- The PRESIDENT - Order! I ask Mr Sgro not to personalise the debate. Once or twice is enough. There is no suggestion that any member of Parliament has come into the Chamber affected by alcohol, and the debate should not be framed in a way that suggests that. Hon. G. A. SGRO - I accept your ruling, Mr President, I did not say -- The PRESIDENT - Order! I know, but that is the way it is read. Hon. G. A. SGRO - I was talking about outside -- PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1759 The PRESIDENT - Order! Mr Sgro will not make any suggestion which could imply that honourable members come into the Chamber drunk. Hon. G. A. SGRO - I see many white men and women walking freely down the street when they are drunk, and my concern is that the Aboriginal people whom I love - they are my best friends - are discriminated against. I want to defend them and this legislation purely protects those people. Mr Baxter says we want one law for everybody but I have never seen a white man hang himself in gaol. The Aborigines hang themselves in desperation and I am disgusted with the people who say this is not a good Bill because they do not come up with anything better. I said to Mr Baxter and Mr Long that I did not refer to them as drunks but as people, because there is nothing wrong with having a few drinks. I have seen them have a few drinks, and they did not finish up in gaol. People in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, on the other hand, who have had only two or three glasses of beer, because of their metabolism, are quickly affected by the alcohol and finish up in gaol. We want to take the criminality out of an ordinary glass of beer and to treat people as normal human beings. We want to educate people not to drink, and to understand that alcohol kills. Hon. ROBERT LAWSON (Higinbotham) - Public drunkenness has long been disapproved of in our society. In her second- reading speech the Minister for Health said that the first Bill on drunkenness was passed by the English Parliament in 1606 and was entitled"An Act for oppressing the odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness". I think the word should have been "suppressing" but the Minister would have known best. For 380-odd years this law has been on the statute books in one form or another. It is now proposed by the government that it should be repealed and something else put in its place. The Bill proposes several means of dealing with public drunkenness and gives police the primary duty of classifying various forms of drunkenness so that a drunken person can be taken to another part of town and set loose, returned home or handed over to the attention of a loving spouse, taken to a sobering-up centre or, if intractable or a danger to himself or others, to a police cell. That is all very well, but I point out that police can do that already because according to my estimation four sobering-up centres are already operating in Victoria, and if police have authority to take drunks to those places we do not need this legislation. They can do it already. I understand the existing sobering-up centres are in Northcote, Mildura, Swan Hill and Shepparton and that they are paid for with Federal money. There is a proposal to open others at Bairnsdale, Morwell, Warrnambool and Echuca. It is also proposed that these centres will deal with persons under the influence of drugs because when the first Bill was introduced in 1606 nobody knew anything about drugs of addiction. Honourable members interjecting. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1760 COUNCIL Triesday, 28 May 1991 Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - If you want further information, I indicate that drugs of addiction did not become popular until the eighteenth and ninet~nth centuries. Hon. D. M. Evans - With Lord Byron! Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - De Quincey was one of the first to use drugs of addiction. Read The Opium Eater! The PRESIDENT - Order! Mr Lawson should be allowed to make his own case. Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - In the debate to date the government has made great play of the fact that Aborigines commit suicide while in custody. According to the information we have, three Aboriginal people have committed suicide while in custody in Victoria in recent years. Mrs McLean mentioned that as well; she outlined the fate of those three people. Two of those persons were in gaol for reasons other than public drunkenness. Only one of them was in gaol for public drunkenness. So, only one person in Victoria in recent years in gaol for public drunkenness has committed suicide. It is a credit to the Victoria Police that it has occurred only once. We should give police credit for what they are doing. So far as I know the sobering-up centres are working successfully at present, but what happens if people start committing suicide? I hope they are closely supervised. The police also object to the legislation because of the proposed appointment of authorised persons. Those authorised persons will presumably have the duty of scouring the streets looking for drunks. No doubt they will cooperate with the police in looking for clients, but the principle remains: they are not police and they are not under the control of the police. I do not think persons of that class should be authorised to pick up drunks and take them to sobering-up centres, the police or whatever. The police should be authorised to do that as they are at present and their authority should not be diminished in any way. Clause 12 states: (1) While a person is in custody under this Act he or she must not be- (a) questioned or otherwise subjected to an investigative procedure to determine his or her involvement (if any) in the commission of an offence; or (b) charged with an offence. That is extremely difficult for the police. If there is a suspicion that a person who is in custody for having been found drunk has committed an offence, the police cannot go to that person in the cell and question him. I do not know how they will overcome that problem. If they charged the person with that offence, they would be in breach of the Act. Clause 17(1) states: Evidence obtained from a person in contravention of section 12 is inadmissible as evidence against him or her in any proceeding for an offence. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1761 The drunken person in custody may have committed an offence but the police cannot question or charge that person. If an offence has been committed, it makes life difficult for the police. The legislation will be fraught with legal difficulties. The terms of the legislation would be used freely in the courts to get people off on quite specious grounds. I understand from the second-reading speech that the Bill is mainly for the benefit of Aborigines. We favour the creation of sobering-up centres for unfortunate people and we are happy to support the ones already in existence. If the Commonwealth is prepared to supply more money - and obviously the State government cannot - we will support the creation of more sobering-up centres so that the police can take people to those centres as they can under the terms of the present legislation. The debate from the government side has centred around sobering-up centres and how marvellous it would be if Aborigines and others could be taken to sobering-up centres, but the point is that that can be done now. We already have that facility. Drunks are currently taken to sobering-up centres, so what is the problem? The other provisions I have read out will create difficulties for police and represent sufficient grounds for defeating the legislation. The way we treat Aborigines has changed in recent years and is changing all the time, and I believe for the better. We will do anything we can to provide better treatment for Aborigines, but I do not think it is necessary to pass the Bill. As Mr Long pointed out, to some extent it is an abrogation of dvilliberties, and for that, and other reasons I have set out, we intend to oppose the Bill. Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong) - I support the legislation although I must admit that when I first saw the title of the Bill and heard about the government's intentions to introduce such legislation my first thoughts contained some misgivings because all of us are concerned about the excessive consumption of alcohol in our electorates, especially among young people, and the effects of alcohol on the social life of our community, the increasing crime rate and a range of other issues. When the Bill first surfaced for discussion I was concerned about the possibilities of decriminalising drunkenness. People in my age group probably think differently from the younger generation. I was brought up at the time of six 0' clock closing when not only was public drunkenness an offence but also consuming alcohol outside an hotel. Police often went around the dance halls where young men might be having a bottle of beer in the back of a car and arrested them. The law was strict and a person could be taken to gaol for consuming alcohol while walking along the street. I guess I belong to an era when public drunkenness was frowned upon but nowadays things are looked at in a different way. As members of Parliament we are all concerned about this problem and we have had concern about the abuse of alcohol in our community expressed to us by our constituents. The Bill is not so much about the abuse of alcohol but about bringing in changes to overcome the problem of drunkenness. It is aimed at helping to cope with the problem. It PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRlMINALISATlON) BILL 1762 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 cannot solve the problem of abuse of alcohol which needs to be handled in another way, for instance, by education. I am surprised that the opposition opposes the Bill. I am not suggesting that there are not areas for concern but I had hoped when the Bill was in the Committee stage some of these issues could be raised with the Minister at the table so that she could give us a better understanding of how the Bill will work. I listened closely to and was impressed with the contribution made by Mr Best who went to a lot of trouble to research the Bill. In an attempt to understand the extent of the problem, on at least three Saturday nights from ten o'clock until six o'clock the next morning he went with the police and local councillors to the grass roots of his electorate. He raised some matters about which I also have some misgivings, such as the use of reasonable force. The definition of "reasonable force" is a matter of concern to me. I am also worried about the authorised persons who will have the power to put people in sobering-up centres. I believe that applies only to those people in charge of sobering-up centres. That authorisation will not be given to just any person; it will be strictly controlled. Mr Best obviously also has the same worries I have. However, those concerns are no reason to throw out the Bill. It should go into the Committee stage and the opposition should present concrete suggestions and I am sure the government will be only too pleased to listen. New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have already decriminalised drunkenness. It has been stated that drunkenness should be dealt with as a health problem rather than a criminal offence and that makes sense. We should consider the recent tragedy on 19 April 1991 where the coroner at the Sale Coroner's Court found that two doctors had contributed to the death of an Aboriginal man who died after being placed in a police cell. He had been taken from the Sale hospital to a police cell at the request of one of the doctors who believed he was drunk. He was left in the cell for 10 hours without proper medical supervision and he suffered major brain damage and died. That is what this Bill seeks to eradicate. Although the Muirhead inquiry was based on the problems of Aboriginal deaths, nevertheless the Bill goes beyond that and approaches the whole aspect of drunkenness and whether it should be decriminalised. Under the Bill the police will retain the power to apprehend people found drunk in public places. The Bill will provide police with options that they do not now have. In fact, the only thing they can now do is to pick up drunk people, charge them and put them in police cells. There are various degrees of drunkenness. Some people can be offensively drunk and others can be the reverse. The law covers offensive behaviour and all other aspects of drunkenness such as creating a public nuisance and creating noise and disturbance. All of those charges are still in the law and a drunk person can be charged with those offences. It is not as though drunks will be allowed to run riot and unapprehended if they are making nuisances of themselves. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1763 The Bill will provide for people who are inoffensively drunk to be taken away by friends or put into a sobering-up centre, anything but a police cell, and they will not be taken to court and charged with criminal offences. That seems to be a sensible, humane and just way of dealing with the problem. I have listened carefully to the arguments of the opposition about why this Bill should not pass. I have heard plenty about what opposition members are unhappy about but they have not come up with any changes that would be covered by relatively simple amendments to the Bill. The problems raised by Mr Long, Mr Guest and Mr Best are all concerns about civilliber.ties. Mrs McLean and Mrs Coxsedge have fought for civil liberties for all of their Parliamentary lives. If the Bill attacked civil liberties in any way they would be the first to voice their concern and they would never support a measure if they thought it breached civil liberties. Although the court can theoretically supervise the process of arrest and police detention, in reality the court does not oversee that process. Many people do not attend court and are convicted in their absence. Very few people plead not guilty to charges of drunkenness. It is only in the case of a few people who do plead not guilty that the actions of the police are brought to the court's attention and evidence is called. Legal aid is not available to contest a charge of drunkenness alone so most people are not able to challenge the basis of their detention. Therefore, the current situation does not give any civil liberties either. The Magistrates Court statistics for 1990 show that something like 3899 people have been found guilty of being drunk in a public place. However, that does not mention the number of people who were actually charged and had the charges dismissed. A large number of people, something like 22 000 in total, have gone through the courts. What this Bill seeks to do as much as anything else is to free up the court system so that, instead of the courts being clogged up with cases of drunkenness - as I said, of some 22 000 people, only some 3899 have actually been argued in the courts, which is a ridiculous situation - the courts and the costs of the courts could well be used in a range of other areas. There is also the question of increased domestic violence. I am "not sure which opposition member expressed concern that the last thing that a wife would want is for her drunk husband to be brought home, especially if he is a wife-basher, and would much prefer him to be placed in a police cell. However, I understand that statistics show otherwise. For example, the Law Reform Commission's 1989 report states that police in New South Wales and South Australia have taken the view that persons apprehended are not always welcome at home and any routine voluntary policy could exacerbate the domestic conflicts. But that is not the case because it is found that in most cases the police are aware of the situation and they discriminate as to who they do and do not take home. There is very little evidence in the other States that this problem is actually occurring. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRlMINALISATlON) BD..L 1764 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 A whole range of reforms are contained in the Bill, apart from the pressing ones in regard to the Aboriginal community. I am certainly a bit worried about the sobering-up centres, and I should like to think that if this Bill were passed more sobering-up centres would be provided. I understand that the centres currently operating are funded by the Commonwealth and partly by the State. I assume - and I note the Minister for Health is nodding in agreement as I speak - that the government did have plans to establish additional sobering-up centres if the Bill were passed. In summary, I support the Bill. It is certainly not without fault. However, it could easily be brought to a satisfactory result if the opposition were prepared to consider it in Committee. The government has expressed its preparedness to consider amendments. Therefore, I am very disappointed that an opposition which believes it will be in government in a relatively short time, within the next eighteen months, would consider taking the action that it is taking. I thought it would start to show a few signs of responsibility to the community that it intends to represent, and the blocking of this Bill certainly does not demonstrate to me or to the thinking people of Victoria that the opposition has any degree of responsibility. The idea of a responsible government is to look at reform and to listen to what Royal Commissions such as the Muirhead Royal Commission and respected bodies such as the Law Reform Commission come up with. Any government worth its salt takes note of what such responsible bodies place before it. I say to the opposition that it is showing a great degree of irresponsibility by opposing this Bill at the second-reading stage. U the opposition intends to be in government I point out it is not even looking like an alternative government if it adopts this sort of approach to what I believe to be sensible legislation that could well be of great assistance, not in preventing drunkenness or solving the problem of alcohol abuse in our community, but in helping to cope with the problems, providing justice to people, and ensuring at least that those people who are suffering from convictions because of a small lack of self control on one night do not suffer the consequences of that conviction and have a black mark against their names for the rest of their lives. That is what the legislation seeks to do. With those few words, I express my strong support for the Bill proposed by the government. Sitting suspended 6.26 p.m. until 8.3 p.m. Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) - A Bill associated with alcohol is essentially a social document because it affects the community in a social sense. The same could be said for the debate in this House on the Bill to legalise brothels some years ago. I viewed that as a social document and I compare it with this Bill inasmuch as the government did not properly address all the issues associated with the matter. The government did not accept the will of the House in proclaiming all the amendments made to the Bill to legalise brothels. I touch on that issue because the Minister has suggested that the opposition and Mr Mackenzie could make amendments to the Bill to improve it. However, if that suggestion were taken up I would not trust the government to proclaim the amendments made in this House. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 1765 Alcohol consumption must be considered as broadly as possible. From my pharmaceutical background I can say that all possible restrictions would be applied to alcohol if it were discovered today. Regrettably, that is not the case because alcohol is accepted as being part of community living. Rather than trying to reduce the consumption of alcohol, the government has been encouraging the opposite effect. The liquor Control Act has been amended to allow a wider range of premises to sell liquor . liquor can now be consumed in large amounts and in a less controlled environment. Small sporting clubs and clubs of other varieties can sell liquor, and people, particularly young people, can drink there without much supervision. I mention that not more than two months ago I attended a football club in the province represented by the Minister for Health. I was there at 6 p.m. and there was no adult supervision of the dispensing of alcohol at that club. The government is in the process of deregulating the means of distributing alcohol. Less and less supervision of young drinkers is being provided, and that is regrettable. The government should try to guide people in the consumption of liquor and other personal habits. I shall comment on the contribution made by Mr Sgro, who is always worth listening to because he speaks with compassion and sincerity. He spoke about the Aboriginal community, as did most speakers. After I graduated in the late 19405 I served for some time on a cattle station in the far north. Only four white people worked on the station, which had an extended staff of Aboriginal people. I learned to love those people; they belong to a fine race and are hardworking and show endeavour. Over the past 40 years the community has not treated A~riginal people well, and I sympathise with them. Mr Sgro and Mrs Mc Lean spoke passionately about the difficulties of the Aboriginal community with liquor. However, alcohol is not the only reason Aborigines are put in prisons. As the community that makes the laws we have not been good at identifying the difficulties of Aboriginal people, particularly their current inability to find work and create a stable society for themselves. Although the Commonwealth government spends large sums of money in an endeavour to help Aborigines, the effort is failing. This particular Bill will not assist or aid that community in any way. The remarks of the government members indicate that the Bill concentrates on the Aboriginal community and the reports on deaths in gaol following several commissions and inquiries. Alcohol is not the only reason why those deaths have occurred in the gaols. Being locked up is only part of the problem for the Aboriginal community, a culture which is used to wide and open ranges. We have a great deal to do for and with the Aboriginal community, and if we have made any improvement in recent years it is that many members of the Aboriginal community are now receiving tertiary education. Because of the education that we have been able to provide the leadership of the future will assist the Aboriginal community in many of its habits. PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS (DECRIMINALISATION) BILL 1766 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991 I am relying on my general knowledge in this field when I say that this race is the only ethnic community that never discovered alcohol in its 40 OOO-year history, and suddenly it was prQpelled into a culture that drinks. Sadly, it is not able to control its own habit. Several articles have been written about the inability of Aborigines to handle alcohol, and I am speaking in a generic sense. In my early days I worked a ten-day fortnight on a cattle station. We used to play cricket with people from adjoining stations 200 or 300 miles away. Inevitably we went off with a truck full of goodies, including liquor, and we probably drank too much in the course of a weekend. The two or three white people there turned up for work again on the Tuesday morning at 7 a.m. but my Aboriginal brethren were not capable of that because they were genuinely ill. It was not a simple hangover; they were genuinely ill and they took several days to recover. We have done nothing to address that general situation and we have a great deal of work to do. The Bill, the second-reading speech and subsequent speeches have focused on the assistance sobering-up centres will give the Aboriginal community, and perhaps they will. I certainly encourage the use of sobering-up centres. They will be of assistance to the Aboriginal community and will also attempt to teach them how to control alcoholic habits. There are only four of these centres in Victoria and they are located mainly on the edges of the State, yet most Aboriginal people now live in the metropolitan area where there is little to assist them in the control of this habit. The concept of a sobering-up centre is a good one and should be available to the total community, not only to Aborigines. Many members of other races cannot handle liquor and need all the assistance they can get, so the centres are a good concept. Mind you, they are still in a trial stage. The staffing that is being provided is fairly minimal so obviously they are in an experimental stage at this time but it will be interesting to observe over the next two or three years whether they work. I hope and trust that they will. If they do, the government must endeavour to provide proper and appropriate funding for such centres to be available to the total community. It has been made clear by the Minister in earlier speeches and on other subjects that there is no money so there will be no extension of sobering-up centres; therefore, the government has been precipitous in bringing forward this Bill at a time when it does not have the money to provide the centres. This is a rather tongue-in-cheek government saying, uWe are doing good things but we are not going to provide the services that are required" . There is a genuine community concern about public drunkenness and I am aware of several councils that intend to put in by-laws to reduce drinking in public places; yet this government has decided to ignore that. U we as a Parliament can act to reduce the ingestion of alcohol we would be acting very Wisely, but that is not what the government is doing. It is not encouraging the councils that want to have by-laws to reduce drinking in public places, and it is not taking any notice of genuine community concern. U the government had any sense it would have included in this Bill provisions directed towards an attempt to reduce the drinking rather than to decriminalise it.