Students Parliament 6 September 2001 Afternoon Session — Legislative Council Chamber

STUDENTS PARLIAMENT 6 SEPTEMBER 2001 AFTERNOON SESSION — LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CHAMBER

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. A. P. Olexander) took the chair at 12.50 p.m.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Good afternoon. I am Andrew Olexander, a member for Silvan Province, and a member of this chamber.

I welcome you all here to the resumption of the Students Parliament and to the Legislative Council. You may have heard earlier in the day that the Legislative Assembly, which is across the corridor and is decorated in green, is the people’s house. While the Legislative Council is elected on a very similar basis to the Legislative Assembly, its role in our democratic process is as a house of review. To achieve that, its members take great care with every piece of legislation that comes to us from the lower house. We analyse it in detail and bring further information and analysis to bear on it.

You may have heard quoted what Lord Acton said last century. He said, ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. That is a very true sentiment, and the whole idea of having a Legislative Council to review the activities of the house of government is so that no chamber has absolute power. The role and traditions of the Legislative Council are very important in our democratic system.

Each student here today is represented by three members of Parliament: one is a person from the lower house, and two members represent each and every one of you in this, the upper house. If you do the maths you will see that every upper house electorate has two members and encompasses four lower house seats, so each province is a large electorate.

I am very pleased to say that there are a number of schools here today from Silvan Province, which I represent — Ringwood Secondary College, Southwood Boys’ Grammar, Monbulk College, Billanook College, Parkwood Secondary College and Yarra Valley Grammar School. I extend a welcome to them and to all schools. I guarantee, however, that I will not be showing any favouritism to my local schools. The position of Acting President of the Legislative Council means I have to be completely fair and impartial.

This is your house; this is the house of review of the Victorian Parliament. You should all feel very proud of yourselves for your contributions thus far.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 9 — Young people have the right to be involved in demonstrations if they choose to do so. Democratic rights do not just begin at age 18.

Presenting school — Ringwood Secondary College

Challenging school — Swan Hill College

Miss J. CLEARY — In today’s growing and changing society it is easy to see that young people play a pivotal role in the development of ideas and outlooks that shape our nation. Young people are affected by developments and changes, and everyone who is affected has the right to voice their opinion. Demonstrations are a way we can be heard and become involved.

Involvement is encouraged throughout our lives: we are told to lead, to challenge our minds, to express ourselves and to make ourselves count. If youth is mature enough to care passionately about a topic of dispute, then there is no reason why, as future adults, they cannot be involved in demonstrations. We see bad things being publicised and making the front page, but generally the good non-violent demonstrations are not heard about. In fact, youths go to demonstrations all the time — it could be a local neighbourhood demonstration or a larger inner-city one. Most demonstrations are safe, and are ways of being involved and voicing our opinions.

If a 17-year-old feels so strongly about a topic of debate, then at that age they are mature enough to independently attend and include themselves in a demonstration. Youths attend demonstrations on topics like globalisation and the environment all the time, with the knowledge of their intensity and risks. But going to such a demonstration shows they are willing to take a risk to make themselves count — they are willing to take the consequences.

If a child aged 13 goes to a local demonstration because he or she cares enough to do so, why object? Most are safe and valuable experiences that can make people think about what they can do for our country. Young people bring fresh new ideas and a new perspective that is more suited to a new generation of people. Older Australians are experienced and may be wise, but they are also more conservative. A mix of young and older people can prove a powerful and decisive combination. Elderly people are eligible to attend demonstrations but they are at more risk of getting injured than a youth. As the elderly generally have more wisdom and knowledge, it is good for the young Australians who want to be involved in the country’s democracy to listen to and learn from this wisdom.

Although we cannot vote until we are 18 many have developed ideas way beyond their years. We live in a democratic society and as a democracy we should listen to everyone. Everyone — including those aged less than 18 — is affected; everyone has rights; and everyone should count if they choose so. Those who choose not to participate do not have to, but why should those who want to lead, be involved and demonstrate be held back?

How can 18-year-olds make informed and wise decisions about who they want to lead the country if they do not know anything about the democracy? We should encourage youth to be involved and to make the right decisions.

Some would say that demonstrations are violent and no place for youth, but most are the exact opposite. Small local ones provide no such danger and larger demonstrations are police-controlled. Legally, demonstrations have to be peaceful so there should be no such threat anyway. However, if we are mature enough to want to go, we are mature enough to handle the consequences and to know what is enough. The leaders of this country did not become leaders by holding back; they stood up, voiced their opinions and were heard. That is what we need in our country: that is what we need in our youth.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Unlike this morning in this chamber, we are fortunate enough to have with us a very dedicated and professional team of Hansard reporters who will take down what you say this afternoon. It is important that when speakers rise they approach the microphone, which will have the little red band lit. I remind all honourable members to do that so that our Hansard reporters can clearly hear your contributions. I thank the honourable member for her contribution and invite an honourable member from Swan Hill Secondary College to respond.

Mr WARD — In what way other than demonstrations can people influence decisions?

Miss SANDERSON — There are many ways you can voice your opinion, but demonstrations are a good way because they show that you are mature enough to have your say.

Miss DODDS — Have any of the honourable members from Ringwood Secondary College been to a demonstration? If so, what was it for, what went on and do you feel you made an impact in some way? 26

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Miss SANDERSON — I have actually been to a demonstration. It was a local one in my street because we did not want a building thing to happen. It was just peaceful and it was really good because I was able to have my say about what I thought was going on.

Miss ANGUS — Can you recall a situation when a demonstration has made a difference?

Mr BROWN — Have you heard of Craig Kielburger from the USA? At the age of 12 he started an organisation called Free the Children. He visited about 13 countries — some of them in the Third World. Many children have been freed from child labour because of a 12-year-old boy and his friends who started demonstrating.

Miss NINNIS — You stated in your speech that elderly people are able to attend these demonstrations but are at more risk of being injured. But then, further on, you said that the demonstrations are not dangerous. Are you contradicting yourself? Isn’t the risk for an elderly person the same as for a young person?

Miss J. CLEARY — We say that elderly people are eligible to attend demonstrations that legally have to be peaceful. We think youth has more chance or opportunity to escape danger than elderly people, who are more likely to be fragile and frail. You are saying they are in the same danger. We are saying that youth has less chance to be injured and is not as eligible to attend demonstrations.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Time has elapsed for Swan Hill Secondary College, so the floor is now open for questions of Ringwood Secondary College.

Miss WALLIKER — With any protests that are violent — like the S11 protests — do you think that this is a good influence on young people who could follow this lead?

Miss SANDERSON — If youths are mature enough to want to go to a demonstration then they are obviously mature enough to know the risks of going there. By going they are showing that they want to go and that they want to voice their opinions, so they also know the risks.

Mr YOUNG — I have seen one on the waterfront and one man was trying to stop a car. He was holding his daughter in front of him and she was distressed and crying. She should not have been there. If we are going to allow people under 18 to be present at these demonstrations, what is to stop parents involving their children just because they believe it would benefit themselves or their cause?

Miss J. CLEARY — At that point the daughter was not old enough to make her own decisions. The parent was at fault and would not have been injured, so I think it was a case where the daughter could not say whether she wanted to go. Some 15-year-olds can make their own decisions against their parents. I would think that, hopefully, most parents would not force their children into something as dangerous as that.

Mr TROYNIKOV — If a toddler is old enough to stick a knife in an electric socket, does that make him mature enough to consider the consequences?

Miss J. CLEARY — We are not talking about toddlers. At that age they are not mature enough to make their own decisions. They are still learning how to crawl and learning how to talk. We think that the parents have the responsibility. And toddlers do not really go to demonstrations. Their parents should not let them, anyway!

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 10 — Parents using drug-detection sprays to check up on their children have ruined their main weapon in the fight against drugs — a trusting relationship with their child.

Presenting school — Yarra Valley Grammar School

Challenging school — Colac College

Mr COOPER — Drug-detector sprays are used to detect the presence or absence of drugs without the need for urine, hair or saliva samples. Simply wipe and spray for quick results; 99 per cent accurate. Great!

Line your kids up each night before dinner, military style, totally lose face with them, remove any trust you may have had with them and test them for drug use. Is this how parent-child relationships should work? If so, count me and millions of other kids worldwide out!

Parents need to talk to their kids about drugs even before they are exposed to them. Just as children are immunised against diseases such as measles, children can be ‘immunised’ against drug use by giving them the facts before they are faced with the substance.

Parents have a responsibility to educate their child about drugs. Often without correct information and because of peer pressure kids will just go ahead and experiment and have no idea what they are doing.

Parents — kids do not want to be preached at. Questions and discussions in a relaxed environment will show your kids that you are willing to talk openly with them and hear what they have to say. They might then be more than willing to come back to you for help in the future.

A loving family environment where kids are encouraged to talk about feelings, where our achievements are praised and our self-esteem boosted, will encourage us to come forward with our questions. If kids do not have an open and trusting relationship with their parents, then kids will go elsewhere.

We should not see our parents as police. Children should feel confident that their parents will help them if they find themselves in a difficult situation. The reality is that we live in a drug-using society. If parents use scare tactics and assume their kids are doing drugs, they have not done their job in preparing them for life. Effective parenting is safe, nurturing and instructive.

As a parent you can influence your child in a positive way. You may not be able to prevent them from using illegal drugs; however, you can help them make informed choices. No-one is immune to drug use.

The so-called war against drugs can be worked through, not by standover tactics, but by letting your child know that you will be there to help them if they end up in a difficult situation. The war is already lost if your child feels that drugs are a way for them to escape or get their highs.

Parents should know if their child is on drugs without the use of a drug spray. Changes in their behaviour or mood swings will show that the child is having problems. Open, trusting communication is the only way a child can be helped through this difficult stage. Drugs are easy to get. Parents cannot shelter their children from exposure to drugs. However, giving them a home where they feel safe to talk about them is a great start.

Parents using drug-detection sprays are saying loudly to their children, ‘I don’t trust you! You are not responsible! I will take control of your actions!’. However, can they do this 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives? Parents will have already lost the war because their child will rebel against such an authority. Adolescence is a time for taking some risks and experimenting. Parents should listen to their children and trust them, not become policemen.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I invite the honourable member to wind up his remarks.

Mr COOPER — Drug alert kits are a massive invasion of privacy. The use of these kits removes one of the key rules of successful parenting — trust.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member from Yarra Valley. I invite questions from Colac College, the challenging school for this topic.

Miss McCOOMBE — Don’t you think parents have a right to know what their kids are doing in their own homes?

Mr HEIGHT — A parent does have a right to 28know whether or not their child is using drugs, but they

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council should not find out through standover tactics; they should talk to their child and find out in a caring environment. They should not force the child by trying to find out whether or not they are using drugs.

Miss WALKER — The member from the other team said that children have to be immunised against drugs in their parents’ homes. But then he said that no-one can be immunised against drugs. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Mr COOPER — I said that no-one is immune to drug use. Immunisations cannot work; however, in most cases they do.

Mr SEABERT — Drug addicts or users are not just from the so-called lower socioeconomic groups of our society; they are to be found across the whole spectrum of society. Some users come from families that do care about and do communicate with them. What do you say to this?

Mr HEIGHT — To that we say again that no person is immune to drugs, whether they are from a rich or poor family, or an open or non-open family. But the more you talk to a child, the more of a caring relationship you get and the less likely the child is to betray your trust and go against you and use such things as drugs.

Mr RUSSELL — You said in your speech that children can be immunised against drug use by giving them facts before they are faced with drugs. Immunisation is an act and not words, and talking about it will not fix the problem. Wouldn’t a drug-detector spray help in this situation?

Mr MIDDLETON — The term ‘immunisation’ was used not in the literal sense, but as an example. Talking to your child can actually help the problem. If you give children information at an early age it cannot immunise them with vaccines but can immunise them so they will not use drugs. If you use drug-detection sprays you will lose the trust of your children, and that could make the drug problem worse.

Miss WALKER — You said we should not see our parents as police, but you also said we should have safe, nurturing parents. This is called positive, but positive equals safe, which equals police. So how does this work?

Mr COOPER — Yes, police are there to help you. But if your parents are using drug-detection sprays, they are saying that they do not trust you, and they cannot really help you if they do not trust you.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank honourable members from both the presenting and challenging schools. The time has now elapsed for Colac College. I now open it up for questions from the floor. I recognise an honourable member from Eltham College.

Miss LUKIES — Many students do not involve their parents in their personal problems. Often the students who turn to drugs are depressed and will not turn to their parents through fear of rejection. If students will not tell their parents about their drug addiction, how can parents find out about their circumstances without the detection spray?

Mr HEIGHT — Often these kids use drugs to escape from things such as family problems, and they have not had a caring, talking relationship with their parents in the first place. If talking had taken place first, they would not necessarily have got onto the drugs to escape.

Miss DA SILVA — How can you be certain that parents and their children will not lose each other’s trust?

Mr HEIGHT — Because of the proof that in the past parents have not trusted their kids with things as little as wagging school or having a smoke. They are still drugs, but are minor things, and kids have been grounded for such things. Why are they less likely to lose trust with substances such as heroin or cocaine, which are much worse, than with substances like alcohol or tobacco?

Mr NEWMAN — Do you really think a child who is on drugs would tell their parents?

Mr HEIGHT — No, parents would not necessarily be told if their kid is on drugs. But parents should trust their kid enough to think that the kid would tell them if they had those problems. Again, a drug is often an escape from a bad child-parent relationship, so they are less likely to be told in the first place, even if they are thinking about it. 29

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Miss BARNETT — Do you think children who use drugs can be trusted?

Mr COOPER — If they are desperate enough to use drugs because they have problems, they will have to talk, because eventually they will be under so much stress.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member. It is such an interesting topic, but unfortunately time has elapsed. We will move on to the next topic.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 11 — Voting in referenda should be voluntary. Those who don’t care or can’t be bothered do not deserve a vote.

Presenting school — Southwood Boys’ Grammar School

Challenging school — Orbost Secondary College

Mr PAALEP — A referendum in Australia enables all Australians to design changes to our constitution, the guiding force that controls our federal government. However, many people do not care about the future of this nation. Should we allow their apathy to limit our progress? No!

Why do we vote in referenda? We vote because we want to be in control of our future. Some want to lead while others want to be led. Those who like to be led do not wish to vote. Under the present laws these people get fined. This should not be the case. Let the individual have the choice to vote.

This type of voting is popularly known in many parts of the world as conscience voting. Our present laws deny us from listening to our conscience. Let us free ourselves from this bondage. Let everyone have a choice. After all, we are supposed to have freedom of speech and expression. Sometimes it is better for those who are passionate about the issue to be involved, as they can offer some good suggestions. Others who don’t care about the outcome can, if forced, sometimes help prevent natural justice being served. It is better to leave these people in their own world. Some people hate making choices as they are unsure about themselves. Why should we stress them? It is better that they abstain from casting an invalid vote or a vote that they don’t care about. After all, a vote is a precious gift, given to us by democracy. Why should we allow this gift to be thrown away?

Other great democracies do not enforce voting. Countries like America and Britain are great examples. Are we attacking the democratic choice not to vote by forcing people to vote? Let the individual have the right to opt out. It is sometimes difficult to make a choice when it is like deciding between the devil and the deep sea. Many who do not wish to vote are caught in this dilemma, and we should sympathise with them. A typical example was the republic versus monarchy referendum. The questions were framed to confuse the voter and many voters were advised to vote for the status quo if they were unsure of the questions. The result was that the tremendous effort that was made in terms of both money and time was brought to nought.

Does this really and truly reflect the opinion of Australians, or did a group of apathetic people vote because they did not care what happened? Did they think that change is too hard to make? I guess we will never know. Should we allow the uninterested to bring the progress of this country to a standstill again? The answer is no. I say to you all, leave them alone and let them be happy. Voting is a serious issue, and only those who are serious about it will contribute positively. So let there be a choice to vote or not to vote. Long live the conscience votes. Let caring Australians guide the future of those who don’t care.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for his presentation. The challenging school for this topic is Orbost Secondary College, and I invite a member of Orbost college to ask a question.

Miss HARVEY — Given the low voter turnout among minority groups in overseas countries where there is no compulsion to vote, how would you guarantee that these groups would be represented in your model for Australia?

Mr PAALEP — Can we please ask the opposition to repeat the question?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Does Southwood understand the question?

Mr PAALEP — I am sorry, Mr Acting President, no.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Is it because you did not hear the honourable member or is it because you just do not understand the question?

Mr PAALEP — We heard the question but we don’t understand it.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council The ACTING PRESIDENT — Could the honourable member put her question in a different form?

Miss HARVEY — How would the poorer societies record their votes?

Mr HORTLE — I don’t understand why the poor in society would not be able to vote. They just turn up and vote.

Miss PERRY — As Australians are well known for their lack of interest in politics and their passion for sport, how would you guarantee a voter turnout, especially if Essendon is playing Collingwood that day?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her most amusing question.

Mr PAALEP — If the people are interested, they will go to the voting. If they are not interested, they will go to the football match and get their fine when they come back home.

Miss MELVILLE — You have said that voting in the United States is a great example of non-compulsory voting. In the last presidential election President Bush won by only a few votes when only 50 per cent of the population voted. How will you guarantee our vote will be representative of the true majority of Australians if voting is not compulsory?

Mr PAALEP — May we have a couple of moments to discuss?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — A few short moments, yes.

Mr BAINES — We believe that the people who care about the vote would turn up and the people who do not would just stay home.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — The time for Orbost has expired. I will now open up the floor to further questions.

Miss WALKER — An estimated 1 million Americans skip the ballot because of lack of choice on the ballot. These 1 million people are generally high up in class status and they regret not voting. If we knew more about what we were voting in or out, we might have more knowledge at voting time. What do you say to that?

Mr HORTLE — Could the honourable member please rephrase her question?

Miss WALKER — In general, many people in America do not vote and they regret it. If we as Australian citizens knew a hell of a lot more about what we were voting for, we might be able to make a bit of a difference.

Mr HORTLE — If there is a lack of information and people do not know who they want to vote for, that could be improved as well. All we are trying to make a point about is that they should not have to vote if they do not want to.

Miss GARLEPP — Doesn’t being given the chance to vote make it your business to decide on a viewpoint, at least for one day?

Mr HORTLE — The fact that more than 50 per cent of Americans did not vote in the previous election just proves that a lot of people do not want to vote. If you are given a vote and you do not want to vote, so be it.

Mr CLARK — You seem to assume in your question that people don’t vote because they are apathetic, but the whole idea of a referendum is that it is important to make people think — we have held about 20 referenda and only 4 passed. Do you think that people should be apathetic, not care and take the easy way out?

Mr BAINES — If they do not want to vote we think they should not.

Mr HEIGHT — The people who do not feel they want to vote are still members of the community and will be affected by things done by the elected government, so should we not make them vote simply because they will still be affected by the outcome?

Mr PAALEP — As I said in my speech, if they do not worry about it, we cannot force them. We cannot tell them to vote. If they do not want to vote, they do not have to vote. That is the point we are trying to prove.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council The ACTING PRESIDENT — The time allowed for this topic has elapsed.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Topic 12 — Mobile phones, SMS messages and other communications technology will create an illiterate generation.

Presenting school — Monbulk College

Challenging school — Eltham College

Miss KURIATA — Literacy is an endangered species. The ability to read and write is threatened by the easy, non-written, lazy shorthand messages typified by mobile phones, SMS messaging, emails and voice-recognition computers. Modern technology replaces writing. Since mobile phones have become relatively cheap and accessible people are using the telephone more than ever. Mobile phones replace memos, letters, telegrams, postcards, greeting cards and invitations. Mobile phones are just so seductively easy, why write? However, literacy develops through use; if you do not see words and read words, then you do not learn words.

Guess who is acquiring mobile phones at a phenomenal rate? Semi-literate teenagers. Modern technology uses an alternative, inferior literacy and it is spreading like a computer virus. SMS shorthand like CUL8ER and I©U undermines grammar and is closer to hieroglyphics than words. Emoticons are an easy way of telling people how you feel, but they are simplistic and inexact. Emails dispense with sentences, spelling is unimportant and grammar is out the window.

Australia has one of the highest levels of mobile phone ownership, and in the United States more than one in five people own a mobile phone. Australia also has the second-highest Internet take-up rate in the world, and the growth does not look like slowing.

Modern technology undermines the importance of literacy. Who will be able to, or would even want to, collect the emails of the famous in the future? What kind of biography will be based on the collected SMS messages and emoticons of great people yet to come? Modern technology creates laziness. People are getting — oops, I mean becoming — sloppier and sloppier. Communication is happening more and more in informal settings: bus shelters, the loungeroom floor, in the school corridor and on the school personal computer when the teacher’s back is turned. It is no big deal.

Responses are instantaneous — often simultaneous, for many conversations take place at once in chat rooms. There is no time to be correct; besides, no-one else is. If you do need to, just press ‘spell check’ or ‘grammar check’. Words are on the way out.

The world has become more visual. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. Graphic user interfaces came in after the invention of the keyboard mouse, and now you just click a picture. As the world becomes globalised images are now flooding society. Airports, roads, et cetera are now covered in pictograms — you need not know how to spell ‘wombat’ to recognise one.

Multimedia makes the word just one option of many. Should I use a photograph, a graphic, an animation, a video, a sound or a combination of these? Why not, if the effect is more powerful than word alone. Encarta has already proved this by killing Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I invite the honourable member to start winding up her remarks.

Miss KURIATA — Like thousands of languages in the world, the written word is becoming extinct. Its habitat is being destroyed by the invasion of other media. Its evolution is going backwards. It is becoming forgotten and abused. It is being bypassed by faster and easier species, and even its conservationists are losing interest. By all means take your children to the book museum, but do not expect them to be able to read the books — besides, they will be too busy talking on their mobile phones!

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Thank you for that presentation. I invite the opposing school, Eltham College, to ask questions.

Miss LUKIES — Why is it a bad thing if the teenager of the new millennium has a different perception of the usefulness and value of communications technology from that of today’s adults? Their language has simply been changed from that of previous generations to suit their social communication. This has been done in the same way our current language has evolved from King James or Shakespeare.

Miss BARNETT — The words that the Honourable Lisa Kuriata is talking about are things like I©U and 34

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council the feelings they show in writing. ‘I will see you later’ can be spelt ‘CUL8ER’ — that is not being literate!

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her response, but our Hansard reporters will probably have a little bit of trouble interpreting what she meant when she held that sign up, so I ask her to table it for the Hansard reporters. I remind members that if you are going to be displaying any materials in the chamber, it is a better idea for the benefit of the public record to describe what is on them rather than just referring to them.

Miss PHILLIPS — You said words were on the way out, yet we still talk every day and use words all the time, so how can this be so?

Miss KURIATA — What we meant was the written word is on the way out. The way people are writing is not literate.

Mr KEYS — Do you hand an essay into your English teacher by sending them an SMS message?

Miss BARNETT — We are not talking about just SMS but also emails and computer chat rooms. But anyway you — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Ignore the microphones and continue with your answer. Have you concluded your answer?

Miss BARNETT — Yes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — That is timely because the time for the challenging school to ask questions has elapsed. I will open up the floor to questions.

Mr SEABERT — I was just wondering if you owned a mobile phone or a computer because you seem to be very illiterate.

Miss E. CLEARY — Actually I do not own a mobile phone, and my family does not have a computer.

Mr NAIK — Are you saying that as technology is progressing we are getting dumber or more illiterate? That would mean that cavemen were really smart — are you saying that?

Miss BARNETT — No, we are not saying that we are getting dumber, because we are getting smarter, but we are just getting slacker.

Mr FOX — Are you saying that later in life we will just be using symbols to write our messages to each other?

Miss BARNETT — Yes, that is what we are saying, and at the moment we are still doing it. We are definitely getting slacker, and that is the point of the whole thing. An example is the ‘I?U’ paper we were holding up earlier. They have them on phones already.

Miss BURNETT — You say people are using shorter phrases in technology, but that is all right. It is better than using longer words than they need to. To talk to someone you do not need to be really long and specific, you can just say generally what you mean. Is that such a bad thing?

Miss BARNETT — No it is not such a bad thing, but while we are still young it is better if we learn how to spell and read and type and everything else, because otherwise we will get slacker than we were.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 13 - Ceremonies and traditions derived from Britain hundreds of years ago have no place in a modern Australian Parliament.

Presenting school - Billanook College

Challenging school - Mitchell Secondary College

Mr PAGE — We at Billanook College believe that all the ceremonies and traditions that have derived from Britain hundreds of years ago have no place in the modern Australian Parliament.

We understand that our parliamentary system has derived mainly from the Westminster system, with some American influence, and along with adopting the system we have also adopted the traditions.

All the traditions and ceremonies that we plan to modernise or abolish have come from Britain and symbolise the fact that we are living their history. We understand the fact that there was a referendum and people decided to stay a constitutional monarchy, but along with that we believe we should not have to keep all the traditions and customs if they are just there to show that we are just another British colony.

We also understand that to change traditions included in the Constitution we need a referendum and change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Hence the role of the Governor-General will not be discussed, because most of his or her power lies within the Constitution.

Some of the traditions and ceremonies that we still carry out, which are of no use to us, are as follows: the Serjeant-at-Arms is simply a security guard. We do not need the symbolism of the name or the mace in a modern Australian Parliament; the Usher of the Black Rod is a glorified minder and caretaker. Why continue with such outdated traditions?

When a senator or member enters or leaves either house, he or she bows to the Chair as a sign of respect. Does that respect lie with the Chair or with Parliament? If they do this as a sign of respect for Parliament, didn’t they already pledge respect at the start of their appointment? If that is the case, then they are just respecting the traditions passed down to us from Britain.

A tradition that has no place in a modern Australian Parliament is the term ‘whip’. The term comes from the expression ‘whipper in’ — a hunting term used in England, given to the person who rounds up the hounds. In Australia we are anti-hunting; we have gun legislation and regulations and no longer go out to hunt down foxes with a pack of hounds. The term ‘whip’ is an insult to our history.

A tradition used to support a proposal is the British ‘upper class’ way of saying ‘Hear, hear’ instead of clapping or cheering. Playing to the audience in this manner is a tradition that plays no part in a modern Australian Parliament.

In conclusion, look around you. We are sitting here steeped in history. That history is not ours. The red upholstery and carpet represent royalty. We do not need a referendum to change that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member. The challenging school is Mitchell Secondary College, and I invite a speaker from that college.

Mr REYNOLDS — In some ways you support the formalities of the British Parliament; in other ways you do not. Why?

Mr MAMROT — We actually support our history and traditions, but it is a fact that we are a British colony. That is the only reason why we have any British traditions at all.

Mr REYNOLDS — Don’t traditions make us what we are today?

Mr MAMROT — History is in the past. It is behind us. We do accept the fact that we have a British history, but along with that there is so much that is Australian, such as meat pies, Vegemite and stuff like that.

Miss STEWART — What is bad about tradition?

Mr NEWMAN — There is nothing bad about tradition, it is just that they are outdated and they are English. Bring in something modern, something Australian.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Mr FOX — ‘A whip’ — doesn’t that imply ‘The end’?

Mr NEWMAN — Can you please you repeat the question?

Mr FOX — ‘A whip’ — doesn’t that imply ‘The end’?

Mr MAMROT — Could you please rephrase that somehow? I don’t understand what you’re on about.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I invite the honourable member to try to rephrase his question and put it another way.

Mr FOX — ‘A whip’, doesn’t that mean ‘The end’?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I think Billanook should try to do the best they can with responding to that question.

Mr MAMROT — Yes, the whip does mean the end, but we are not just talking about that, we are talking about what his job is and how he is just a tradition. The actual topic is about the fact that we want to modernise traditions.

Miss STYLES — Why isn’t it our history? Didn’t we come from British heritage?

Mr LOWE — Yes, British history is part of our history, but we also came from an Aboriginal history as well, and we have started to form some of our own history.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for his response. Time has elapsed for Mitchell Secondary College. Now I will open up the debate to questions from the floor.

Miss NGO — Britain is the official founder of Australia. Isn’t it therefore important that we maintain some of their traditions in our modern Australian Parliament?

Mr MAMROT — We are going to keep some of the British traditions, but we do not need all of them such as using the Usher of the Black Rod at the opening of Parliament. We do not need that. That does not symbolise anything Australian.

Mr HEIGHT — The system is not broken, so why should we fix it? Australia is running quite well at the moment.

Mr MAMROT — The system isn’t broken, it is just that all the traditions that we have to modernise are a waste of time and we just want to show that we are Australian, instead of having all the red upholstery, which symbolises royalty — none of us are royal. All Australian people are equal. We do not want to completely remove all the traditions, just modernise them and make them Australian.

Miss PHILLIPS — How can traditions be modernised? Aren’t they things we have done for a long time to celebrate our history?

Mr MAMROT — The traditions are British, and we want to modernise them to make them Australian, to make them our traditions and not just those of another country.

Mr CLARK — I do not know if your college was here at the start of lunch when the member of Parliament was talking about the culture, but it comes down to this culture. This building was built from the goldfields. Are you saying you want to rip down this building and take all the gold leaf out of it? The Usher of the Black Rod and other people work here, it is their livelihood. Are you saying you want to throw them out on the street?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — The honourable member should come to his question.

Mr CLARK — I am. It is all deeply part of the question. We are Australians, but we came from Britain. They are our links. We are not a colony, but we are still part of the empire, so why remove it?

Mr NEWMAN — I don’t know.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Mr CLARK — Can I have a proper answer to that question? It is a legitimate question.

Honourable members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Order! The time has elapsed, but I will allow a representative of Billanook College to readdress that question.

Mr MAMROT — Could you please repeat the question?

Mr CLARK — What is the matter with the present system? What is the matter with what we have now? It is still a part of Australia. Would you throw out Vegemite because it is owned by an American company? This is still Australian.

Mr MAMROT — This is Australian, but it is still British. All the traditions are British. In the hall the uniform of the Usher of the Black Rod is displayed. How has that anything to do with Australia or with us? We are Australians, and we are acknowledging the fact that we are still British, but we can modernise this to make it more Australian.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 14 — Public transport should be free of charge for people under the age of 18.

Presenting school — Melbourne High School

Challenging school — St Mary’s College Seymour

Mr CLARK — We strongly believe that people under the age of 18 should be allowed to travel on public transport free of charge. For this argument we define public transport as trains, trams and buses contracted by the government. It would be futile to enter into a debate over the definition of public transport, so we ask that our definition be used in this discussion.

In this debate we shall concentrate on the two areas from which we believe the most benefit could be obtained by the abolition of charges for people under the age of 18. Our arguments centre on the environmental and economic benefits that would ensue after our proposed amendments to the Transport Act 1983. These benefits would not only benefit the younger generation but would be long term with lasting results.

Over the last decade or so much has been made of the greenhouse effect. While there has been debate about its effects, there is general consensus around the scientific community that gas emissions should be cut by all countries of the world to slow the possible effects. Australia can play its part by encouraging people to use public transport. The Public Transport Users Association says that motor vehicles account for 81 per cent of transport emissions, while public transport accounts for only 3 per cent. Put yourselves in a parent’s situation. You are faced with the stressful drive to your child’s school, using valuable petrol and precious time, emitting dangerous gases into our atmosphere, or you can put your child onto an efficient train, free of charge, assured that the ride will be safe due to the large number of people taking the train. What would you choose?

Benefits do not stop at the environment. They continue through to the economy. Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is spent on expanding freeways, tollways and surrounding infrastructure. City Link alone cost $2.7 billion and still is not finished. In 1999, 1761 people were tragically killed in car-related accidents, and many more were injured. As well as the social costs, this would cost taxpayers millions. Encouraging people to use public transport would be an economic benefit. Compare the efficiency of a train carrying 600 people against at least 300 cars. This money is better spent on an improved public transport system or could be further used to benefit the economy.

Providing free public transport for young people would set up a generation of public transport users. They would grow up knowing the system, understanding the reasons, and then the above benefits would carry on through their entire lives. This generation would also encourage other people to use public transport.

In conclusion, public transport is to be just that — public. We need to provide it for all, and a great start towards this goal is to start with the under-18s.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for his thoughtful contribution. Before the challenging school begins, I acknowledge and welcome to the gallery Mr Craig Langdon, the honourable member for Ivanhoe, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament.

Mr FEERY — Melbourne High School stated in its speech that parents are faced with the stressful drive to their students’ schools. Why can’t the student ride a bike or walk?

Mr BAER — There are often many reasons why students cannot get to school on their own, such as distance, unsafe areas, and so on. It is not set out that anyone can just ride to school. I have to travel 40 minutes by train to get to school. If I was to ride to school it would take me at least 2 hours.

Miss WALLIKER — How does Melbourne High School suggest the government make public transport more comfortable and efficient enough to encourage less car use when under-18s are perceived as rowdy and unpleasant and even vandals?

Mr CLARK — The fact is that under-18s are part of our society. We are all under the age of 18 here, apart from members in the gallery. We have to get to school somehow. A small minority slashes a seat now again; it is a part of life. These things happen, and if they can be addressed by more people travelling on public transport, then more people will be employed, such as ticket inspectors.

Miss ENGEL — What does Melbourne High School think is the percentage of people using public transport now, and how would it be increased if it were to be free to under-18s? 39

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Mr GOOD — We do not have the exact figures, so we cannot really give them to you now.

Mr TENNANT — If public transport is for everyone, why should under-18s be singled out for free fares when there are other people such as pensioners who need financial assistance, and maybe the under-18s are supported by their parents?

Mr GOOD — Our topic was that people under the age of 18 should be allowed to travel free. We are not necessarily saying that pensioners should not. We just stuck to the topic.

Mr FEERY — If travel were free, we would need more vehicles and trains to cope with the increased travellers. Would our current road and rail systems be able to cope with all the cramming?

Mr BAER — Yes, our current train systems would be able to cope with the increased amount of travel. The roads obviously would not have that extra travel on them, so they would obviously be able to cope as well.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Time has elapsed for the challenging school. I now open up the floor to questions.

Miss WILLIS — A lot of children use public transport, and a lot of its money would come from them. How do you expect the expense of public transport to be maintained without the children’s contribution?

Mr DIXON — This is a long-term proposal. It is about changing the image of public transport. Over time we hope it will change. This is where the money will go, and also to freeways and things like that.

Miss ANGUS — You said that you could put your child on a train instead of using your precious petrol. Do you have proof that that is safe, and would you put your seven-year-old child on a train without knowing they are safe?

Mr BAER — The majority of seven-year olds tend to go to state primary schools, and the majority of state primary schools happen to be within a relatively close distance of where they live. There are very few state primary schools that are close to train stations for seven-year-olds to take the train. There is also a safety-in-numbers issue involved with this.

Mr TROYNIKOV — How do you plan to cope with the extra demand of people taking advantage of the free tickets? Do you just plan to cram us onto trains like cattle onto cattle trucks?

Mr CLARK — We are going to be getting a lot of government funding for this. At the moment less people buy tickets anyway, so it will not be an issue of funding.

Mr KEYS — Why should under-18 people be allowed to use public transport for free when most peak-time users are businessmen going into the city and aged over 18?

Mr CLARK — I am very glad you raised that issue, because that is where we will get most of our funding for this. You just said that the peak users will be businessmen, and we will still be charging them. This will only be for under-18-year olds. We will be getting more money from businessmen when they buy tickets, so that is fine by us.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Unfortunately, that is the end of that topic.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 15 — Women’s sport makes the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Presenting school — Parkwood Secondary College

Challenging school — Ivanhoe Grammar School

Mr McGREGOR — We at Parkwood Secondary College firmly believe that women’s sport makes the headlines for all the wrong reasons. When I first heard this topic I thought I would be arguing something I did not believe in, but as we researched and learnt more I found this statement was truer than I had ever known.

I admit not having an amazingly firm following of sport, and therefore I only know what the media tells me. But that makes me the perfect source. I didn’t know much about female sport before I began researching, but what I did know I knew for all the wrong reasons. I knew about the female swimmers who were disqualified for diving into the pool. I knew about Jelena Dokic because of her father. I knew about female netball players because they are not allowed to play while pregnant. These things all have one thing in common — they are examples of scandal, outcry and misunderstandings. They have nothing to do with the actual sport, yet these are the things I knew about — these were the things that made the headlines.

In a topic such as this, it is generally expected that the topic of sex appeal will come up, and, of course, it will. We all try to tell ourselves that sexism does not exist in our society, but we cannot truthfully deny that it does. And, of course, it applies to women’s sport. One of the few reasons that women’s sport makes the headlines is because of sex appeal. Anna Kournikova has never won a major tournament, yet she is a household name because she is attractive. Her sporting ability has nothing to do with the amount of media coverage she gets. If you’d like proof of that, I offer you this: never once in my speech have I said the word ‘tennis’, yet you all know who I am talking about.

Let’s face it, sex sells — whether it’s TV ratings or TV dinners. Did you know that there is a rule in female beach volleyball about the amount of material you are allowed in your costume? It isn’t a maximum! Yet beach volleyball is one of the most televised sports. I see a definite link. Tatiana Grigorieva is another highly recognised sportswomen. She, too, is recognised for her looks. The media jumped at the sight of an Australian sportswoman who had previously been a model. I know that she earned a silver medal in the Olympic Games, but I have no idea who won the gold, nor was I able to find out. Just recently she placed fourth in the world championships, but I have no idea who came first, second or third, and all my information on this matter comes from the media.

Have you ever seen a magazine called Inside Sport? On the cover of each issue they have a picture of a female sportsperson. No, I correct myself, they have a picture of an attractive female sportsperson. No, I correct myself again, they have a picture of an attractive barely dressed female sportsperson, who is on the cover not because of her sporting ability but because of her looks. That is a wrong reason.

When I first heard about this topic I decided to learn the truths about the matter. So I went to a good source of sports media — the Channel 10 program, Sports Tonight. So I taped the program and sat down with a pad and pen to write down all the reasons that the female sports were on. I was disgusted to find that this would be a harder task than I thought, because there were barely any. There were only two things that resembled anything to do with female sport.

The ACTING SPEAKER — I invite the honourable member to conclude his remarks.

Mr McGREGOR — One was a story of a woman who had recently come first in the hammer throwing at the world championships. She broke her own commonwealth record. She is an amazing sportsperson, yet she is not amazingly attractive. This would have been on for all the right reasons, except she was not on because of her sporting ability, she was on because she happened to win the first Australian medal at the world championships. The only other reference to female sport was a passing comment that the presenter’s wife had won her netball championship.

So let’s wrap up. In order for a female sport to make headlines, you either need to win Australia’s first medal in a competition, be married to a sports presenter, be involved in a scandal or have great sex appeal. There is something wrong with that list — that is, it lacks sporting talent, ability and skill. That, Mr President and my honoured listeners, is wrong. Women’s sport makes the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Thank you for your presentation. I now invite a member of Ivanhoe Grammar School to pose a question. 41

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Mr CHEN — How would you solve the problem of sexism?

Mr McGREGOR — I would give an even amount of presentation to all female sports regardless of the looks of the people who participate in them.

Mr KENNEDY — You say that you want to put in place some way of making sure there is even coverage between women’s and men’s sports. This would require legislation, obviously, but do you plan to enforce or try to influence the commercial media and the ABC?

Miss GARLEPP — We do not plan to do anything. The media should be in charge of this. However, if we did do something, we would make sure that even coverage was given to both men and women. Therefore, both the men’s and women’s football would be shown as would the men’s and women’s cricket, and all the other not-so-well-known sports would be shown because people want to watch them.

Mr TROYNIKOV — So, according to you, you do not need any sporting ability whatsoever to win the first medal of the Australian Parliament?

Miss HILL — No, we are not saying that you need have good looks to win something. We are not saying you need to be beautiful to win the major sporting achievement awards. What we are saying is that to get the publicity you deserve, you need to have something around you that either says you are beautiful, or there is some scandal or misconception towards it; otherwise you do not get what you deserve.

Mr NAIK — The Olympics show the sports of both women and men equally, and they share the time equally. But, for example, I cannot see how the girls in the weight-lifting competition are good looking or attractive.

Mr REARDON — Firstly, I would like to point out that there is no women’s weight-lifting event in the Olympic Games. Although time is allowed for each sporting event, you may notice that a lot of the time is spent on the beautiful women that are featured rather than the more homely ones.

The ACTING SPEAKER — The time for Ivanhoe Grammar School has expired. I open the subject to questions from the floor.

Mr PAALEP — People like Susie O’Neill were on the news because of her medal, Cathy Freeman was in the headlines because of her 400 metres victory and Marion Jones was on television for being the fastest woman sprinter. Personally, I think they are unattractive — I am sure that you would agree with me; I am not being rude — but they still made it on to the front page.

Miss HILL — Cathy Freeman is Aboriginal. She had the guts to go out there and compete as an Aboriginal, which had not seen before and was a bit controversial. As well as that, though, a lot of those people have a definite winning attitude which can almost surround them like an aura. That is something the newspapers also enjoy showing — someone who really is a winner, and someone who is good looking.

Miss NEILSON — Do you think the issue about women’s netball is unfair, considering the risk to the unborn child? Do you think the media publicised that for the wrong reasons? Do people who do not play or watch netball have the right to know anything about the fact that a player may be pregnant?

Mr McGREGOR — The media is broadcasting that news and the public should know about it, but it does not seem to have much bearing on the actual performance of the players in the sport. It is making the headlines because it is a sport issue, not because someone is actually playing the game.

Miss J. CLEARY — Do you not think that maybe you knew that Tatiana Grigorieva came fourth in the world athletics championship because she was Australian? Do you not think the Australian media would publicise events because of the Australian competitors?

Miss GARLEPP — We know about Tatiana Grigorieva because she is Australian, but there are a lot of less well-known athletes who are just as good who compete in the Olympic Games. They might come eighth, but we hardly know about them. However, do you know who came first? You may know, but did you find that out from the newspaper or did you actually watch the sport?

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council TOPIC 16 — Reality television is totally unreal.

Presenting school — Westall Secondary College

Challenging school — Broadford Secondary College

Miss NGO — We, at Westall Secondary College, strongly believe reality television is unreal. Why? Because it is supposed to be a form of unscripted entertainment, but editing, prize money and a chance to become famous change the way people behave, so the final product is mainly set up. Sure, it may be entertaining and fun to watch, but it is not real. How can we believe that shows like Big Brother or Survivor or CCTV shows are real?

Commonsense tells us there are plenty of things that suggest reality television is unreal. For instance, it is most likely the shows are planned and follow the script because it is impossible to have ordinary people constantly experiencing so many new and exciting things. There was even controversy in the media implying that a member on Castaways was paid to be deliberately voted off the island. Rumours also suggest that Sara-Marie’s eviction on Big Brother was tampered with so that she would not win after all.

Thus, most things about reality television are a set-up. If 12 strangers had to live in a house with cameras watching them 24 hours a day, seven days a week would they behave for the cameras the way they normally would? Definitely not. It is absolutely abnormal for people to go skinny-dipping or go crazy in the backyard every single day. Normally they would not do such things but they act like that only when they know their every move is being caught on tape and could be shown to the public. In other words, people in reality shows behave unnaturally because they are placed in unreal situations.

Another very important point is that reality television is also big-money television. Its real aim is to attract and impress large audiences because the participants are made to appear as they would in real life. Young people are interested in the lives of strangers enclosed in camera-filled houses and those who must survive on an island stuck in the middle of the ocean. That is why so many of these shows are broadcast on television — to win over a large audience. Even the media is questioning the sincerity of so-called reality television. Recently the Herald Sun said:

Maybe one of the first problems solved could be how to get fewer reality shows on TV. Reality television is unreal. It is allegedly unscripted entertainment and only gives audiences false impressions. Whether or not it is interesting or funny is not the point. Reality television is unreal because stimuli, such as enclosed surroundings following evictions, set challenges, and cameras filming around the clock set up an enormous amount of psychological pressure which affects otherwise normal behaviour. Participants are also carefully selected to maximise conflict or contrasting behaviour. Your normal Joe Blow does not get an invite on to the island. Editing also renders shows as unreal because cameras only filter the good events that happen in the house. Therefore, reality television is unreal.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her remarks. The challenging school for this topic is Broadford Secondary College.

Miss WILLIS — You have said reality TV appeals to young people: what is your definition of ‘young’, and why have you singled out young people?

Miss NGO — When we say ‘young people’ we mean people who are most likely in their teens — people of our age — or even those in their 20s and 30s, because elderly people are not really attracted to reality shows — if they are real at all — like Big Brother.

Miss MITCHELL — On Survivor 2 Michael fell into a fire and got burnt, he was airlifted to hospital and never returned. What is this if it is not real?

Miss TAN — He was the only one who got injured in Survivor 2. Don’t you know that in Australia there are the most poisonous spiders and snakes crawling around? If this is what it is like in the Outback, how can people from a foreign country just come and live in the Australian Outback without getting injured or bitten or even a little bit sick?

Miss NEILSON — You made a point about people acting differently in front of the cameras, but when they are locked in a house — cameras or not — people are going to act differently. How do you know people are acting this way just because of the cameras? 43

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Miss NGO — Cameras set up an enormous amount of psychological pressure. Say we put you in front of a camera; most likely you would try to make yourself look more beautiful and better, so you could say, ‘I am very, very good’.

Miss BURNETT — If you are suggesting that reality TV is unreal, do you think this sort of entertainment can make ordinary people feel unhappy with their lives?

Miss TAN — I do not think that people feel unhappy about their lives, they just want a chance at getting fame and fortune. Why do you think the people went on Big Brother? It was not just because their lives were boring; they wanted to come out of the house and be known and recognised by everybody around them.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her response. Broadford Secondary College’s challenging time has elapsed, so I now open the discussion to questions from the floor.

Miss STYLES — In your speech you said that all these people going skinny-dipping and that is not normal. Are you saying that all the people on Big Brother and CCTV are fake or something?

Miss TAN — I do not believe it is normal to go skinny-dipping in front of a camera. Don’t you think someone could have told her to go skinny-dipping so more people would watch the show to see her skinny-dipping and say, ‘Oh, she’s so cool. I can’t believe she has the guts to do that.’? If I were there, I would not want to do that.

Miss WALLIKER — With actors striking in Hollywood and the axing of TV shows that people like to watch, can you name one TV show that we can watch other than reality TV?

Miss NGO — Yes, I can name one particular show that was axed, and it was Greed, if you know that show.

Mr FOX — People are always acting normal, depending on the situation. How do you explain why the people on Big Brother went skinny-dipping — isn’t it to show off? Is that their personality?

Miss DA SILVA — No, because Sara-Marie liked attention, and that was her way of showing it.

Miss SANDERSON — Does this mean that Home and Away is just as real as Big Brother?

Miss TAN — You can tell Home and Away is scripted and everything; Big Brother could actually be viewed on the Internet 24–7; Home and Away cannot do that. You cannot watch Home and Away on the Internet 24–7.

Miss PHILLIPS — If an event occurs, isn’t it real? While it may not have been something that a person might normally do, and may even have been scripted, it has happened, because it was filmed, so how can you classify it as totally unreal?

Miss TAN — People do not want to watch the people on Big Brother sitting on a couch talking about the meaning of life. They want something interesting to watch. Have you ever thought maybe the producers have told them what to do and what to say to make the show more lively?

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I thank the honourable member for her response. Unfortunately — very unfortunately — that was the last question on the last topic. At this point I will introduce to you the Education Officer, Karen Dowling, who will address you briefly.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council CLOSING OF STUDENTS PARLIAMENT

Ms DOWLING — Before you finish up today and pass your adjournment motions, I would like to congratulate each of you on your participation today, on being selected to represent your schools and on doing such a fine job in the chamber this afternoon and this morning. I was not able to listen to all the proceedings, but what I heard was very interesting and commendable. I hope you have all enjoyed participating in Students Parliament this year.

Something else I hope you have gained from today is an added interest in the proceedings of the Victorian Parliament. I hope that seeing this beautiful building and meeting some of the members of the Victorian Parliament has stirred in you a greater interest in current affairs.

The types of bills that are passed through this and the other chamber affect all our daily lives. You can see it on the television and read about it in the papers, and when you do that I hope you will now feel an added connection with it. You can now say, ‘I have been in those chambers. I have sat in that very chair’. I hope that encourages you to take a greater part in your community’s affairs.

It does not necessarily mean each and every one of you may want to become a member of Parliament yourself in the future, although I hope to see a few of you in this chamber in the coming years. Even if you are not a member of Parliament, you can still participate by making your views known to your representatives. Each of you has three members of the Victorian Parliament representing you, and I encourage you to find out the names of those three members and let your views on all sorts of issues be known to them. The only way they can do their job properly is by knowing what you think on those issues.

I would like to thank a few people for the proceedings today. Although I organise the day, I am not able to make it run all by myself; I rely on help from staff from the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, who help make sure that you are in the right positions and that you are looked after, and who act as Clerks for us.

The Hansard reporters do such a wonderful job taking down all the proceedings, and you will be able to read the transcript; one will be sent to each school. Because we have had the Hansard reporters in the Legislative Council this afternoon and in the Legislative Assembly this morning, each of you will be able to find at least someone from your school — if not yourself — mentioned by name in the report. I hope you will look forward to receiving it.

Finally, I thank the members of Parliament who have acted as Presiding Officers in both chambers. Members of Parliament are very busy people who have a lot of demands made on their time, but they have willingly volunteered to come along and preside over these and other activities. I thank all honourable members who participated in both chambers on the two days the Students Parliament has been run.

I wish you all well for the rest of your school careers and for participating as members of an active democracy. Thank you!

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Thank you, Karen, for being such a powerhouse in organising this event, and what a wonderful event it is!

Before we move on to the adjournment motions — and I understand there are three on the notice paper — I would like to say that I was delighted to be a part of today’s proceedings. I was happy to participate. As a member of Parliament I often hear a lot of people say that young people in Victoria and in our society do not really connect with issues, that they do not get involved and that they do not have opinions. What I have seen and heard today disproves that theory absolutely.

You can all be very proud of what you have done today. You have raised some very topical issues and have done so professionally and thoughtfully. Each and every one of you deserves congratulations for the way in which you have probed and looked at issues from both sides. I am extremely impressed, and I echo Karen’s words when she said that today there could very well be members of a future Parliament, federal or state, future local councillors and future community leaders in this and the other chamber. Given what I have seen and heard today, I would be shocked if there were not.

Well done, guys! You deserve praise and are really showing that young people are not just the future of this state and this nation; you are leading the way today! I am very grateful for your feedback on those issues. 45

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council Miss LUKIES — I move:

That the Students Parliament, at its rising, adjourn until next year on a day and hour to be fixed by the Speaker and President in conjunction with the Education Officer. Motion agreed to.

Mr REYNOLDS — I move:

That this house express its thanks to the Presiding Officers and the Parliamentary Education Office for arranging today’s Students Parliament. Motion unanimously agreed to.

Mr TENNANT — I move:

That the Students Parliament do now adjourn. Motion unanimously agreed to.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Apart from students, parents, teachers and the Education Officer, we should give a round of applause to our dedicated and professional team of Hansard reporters who have been with us this afternoon.

Afternoon session concluded.

6 September 2001 Students Parliament Council