OPENING OF STUDENTS PARLIAMENT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MORNING SESSION

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Janice Munt) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. and read the prayer.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Welcome to the Parliament today. I hope you have a great experience. I will try to do my best. This is actsually my first time as Acting Speaker, so I am going to make more mistakes than you are.

My usual seat — the one that I have to sit in — is right up there, and it is currently occupied by my daughter, Jenny, who is going to be the mini member for Mordialloc today while I am the Acting Speaker. She is not allowed to speak, however.

The first school will be Kilbreda College.

TOPIC 1 — Compulsory voting is undemocratic

Presenting school — Kilbreda College

Challenging school — Glen Waverley Secondary College

Miss STEED — We, at Kilbreda College, believe that compulsory voting is undemocratic. About 20 countries in the world have some form of compulsory voting, which means people have to register to vote and go to the polling booth to vote on election day. In Australia it has been compulsory to vote since 1924.

Australians who do not vote can be fined if they do not have a valid reason, such as being ill. There is a large expense involved in chasing up people who have not voted to find out whether they have a valid excuse.

Australia is one of a few democratic countries in the world that has compulsory voting. A democracy means that people have freedom of choice. It is undemocratic to force people to vote because they should have the freedom of choice to decide not to vote. It is only in non-democratic countries governed by dictators that people are compelled to vote.

Compulsory voting gives an unfair advantage to the major parties because they get lots of votes from loyal supporters election after election without having to spend any time or money trying to convince them to do so. Minor parties or independents have a much more difficult job because their resources are limited. If voting were not compulsory the minor parties or independents would have a much better chance of winning.

An informal vote is a vote that does not count. Compulsory voting increases the percentage of informal votes. Because people are being forced to vote, a lot of people resent it, and they deliberately have an informal vote. In the 2001 election there were 580 362 informal votes, which made up 4.8 per cent of the total votes. In the electorate of Fowler, New South Wales, the informal vote rate was 12.7 per cent!

For similar reasons a lot of people have a donkey vote, which means they just number the ballot paper from top to bottom without even thinking about who the candidates are. If the result was close, someone could get elected with some donkey votes and the person who deserved to win would lose.

Compulsory voting was introduced in 1924 by a small group of parliamentarians concerned about political education amongst voters. Compulsory voting has not contributed to serious political education among voters; it may have disencouraged it. This means that people will be choosing candidates when they do not really know what the policies are. If people only had to vote if they wanted to, they would be more likely to inform themselves about the policies. Political knowledge remains at a very low level in Australia. A report on political education by a Senate committee commented on a high level of ignorance in the Australian population about basic aspects of politics and government.

To force a person to vote does not increase the person’s awareness or fulfil a civic duty — it almost does the reverse. The compulsion to vote by an apathetic, reluctant or even hostile voter may produce an ill-considered and irresponsible vote. With many elections involving winning margins of 2 to 3 per cent or less, it is unfair that a group of uninterested people have determined the government — —

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 1 The ACTING SPEAKER — Honourable member, your time has expired.

I invite honourable members from Glen Waverley Secondary College to ask their questions. .

Mr RAMAKRISHNA — When you claim that it is only in non-democratic countries governed by dictators that people are compelled to vote, how do you explain Australia, our lifestyle and our government? Are you implying that we live under dictatorship?

The ACTING SPEAKER — Any honourable member from Kilbreda College may respond to that question. No response to that question? I thought it was pretty tricky too. We will ask another honourable member from Glen Waverley College to ask another question.

Mr YU — Considering that voting has been compulsory in Australia since 1924, with alternatives provided, being postal or absentee voting, what is so onerous about coming out once every three or four years to express your democratic right?

Miss GRAHAM — Everybody should have their right to vote in any way they want, even if it is only every couple of years. They should have the freedom to have their choices and to decide which government, which party or which group should run the country.

Miss MELKI-WEGNER — Considering that the right to vote was fought hard for by female suffragettes, should it not be enshrined and appreciated, not just cast aside as an onerous chore?

Miss BARON — People may not already know, as they may not be able to decide which major party, and therefore the decision they make could be completely wrong. Many people could be wrong.

Miss JUHEJA — Do you not you think that compulsory voting is quite effective in making politicians work harder, as they have a wider range of community concerns to address?

Miss RUSCIANO — Everybody has a right to vote. Why would that make everybody work harder, when they are only trying to make the public vote for them? The public might not want to vote for them; they might just do a donkey vote.

The ACTING SPEAKER — We will now have 3 minutes of questions from all honourable members in the whole chamber.

Miss SIOMOS — I have a question relating to the education of students throughout Australia concerning politics. You have said that voting should not be compulsory because people have become ignorant and do not know enough about the system. Do you think it would be a good idea to maybe educate Australia more on how our political system actually works?

Miss GRAHAM — If they do not want to vote why should we force them to vote. Everybody has their own opinion and choices and they should feel free to do whatever they like. People should be educated, but it depends how they feel inside.

Mr HAMMER — It is my belief that people have the right to cast an informal vote. Please clarify this for me.

Mr RAMAKRISHNA — As a democratic country does not the government represent the entire population. If only 10 per cent of the people vote who is the government representing? After all, it is the citizens duty to vote, but it is their choice as to who for.

Miss BARON — Why do they have to vote. As I said before, the vote could lead to the wrong party being elected.

Miss KEMP — If we make voting compulsory, it would lose its formality. Those who oppose voting may find it inconvenient.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 2 TOPIC 2 — The MCG is the only place to hold the AFL Grand Final.

Presenting school — Parkdale Secondary College

Challenging school — Brauer College

Miss HOLLOW — The Melbourne Cricket Ground is our nation’s most famous sporting stadium. It has a capacity to accommodate the largest crowd, in the greatest comfort, of any stadium in the country. Since the Victorian Football League staged the first grand final on the MCG in 1902, when Collingwood defeated Essendon, this wonderful stadium has been the home of Australian football and the deeds of the game’s legendary players are woven into the history of the MCG. The notion that the MCG is the only place to hold the AFL Grand Final is surely self-evident. To even think of playing the grand final elsewhere is not only ludicrous, but crass stupidity!

The MCG’s status as a sporting venue is unchallenged. The vast grandstands offer superb viewing and the atmosphere in this magnificent stadium on grand final day stirs the hearts of spectators, uniting their excitement with a passion only matched by the first Tuesday in November. But the MCG is more than just a convenient stage. It is part of the fabric of our culture. Ever since Wills introduced football to Victorians in the 1850s, the ‘park that grew’, as the MCG is affectionately known, has become a national treasure.

The world knows the MCG as the venue of the 1956 Olympic Games. Australians know it simply as ‘the G’, the inspiration of champions. There is a connectedness between the Australian sports fan and ‘the G’ especially for the AFL fan. Footy fans feel as though it is their territory — their backyard. This is not just a Victorian sentiment. Footy fans travel from all over the country to experience ‘the G’. It is like an act of faith, and on grand final day it is certainly a pilgrimage. It is where the fans’ heroes have triumphed, and where their dreams of future glory lie.

Since the VFL became the AFL and teams from interstate joined the competition, there has been a simmering suggestion that a grand final may one day be held elsewhere. That abhorrent thought has gained momentum in 2003, there being a strong possibility of the grand final being played without a participating Victorian team. This notion should be rejected utterly and not simply because the MCG admits the most spectators.

There are, of course, contractual reasons why the match cannot be shifted, not to mention economic realities linked to television, marketing and advertising. The most compelling reason for holding the grand final at the MCG, however, is simply that the vast number of supporters want the match held there. The handful of Johnny-come-lately supporters in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney fail to recognise that the interests of the game and the desires of the people far outweigh any petty preferences.

Just as the Boxing Day test match will forever be held at ‘the G’, just as the Melbourne Cup will never leave Flemington, the AFL Grand Final is spiritually linked to the MCG. It is part of the rhythm of our lives. It is where we go and what we do as Australian football supporters on the last Saturday in September.

Mr ORCHARD — We agree the atmosphere created on grand final day is electric, but the atmosphere is created by the game and its supporters. How can you say this atmosphere is created only at the MCG?

Mr LEINER — It is the sheer size of the MCG that creates the atmosphere. There is no other stadium like it and the more people there the better it is.

Miss LUMSDEN — Are not we as Victorians being selfish keeping the economic advantages gained by holding the grand final only to ourselves?

Miss HOLLOW — When the VFL became the AFL interstate teams recognised that the grand final would always be held at the MCG, but now they are saying the opposite just because there may be two non-Victorian teams that may compete in the grand final. They have to understand that we are not being selfish but are keeping with our tradition.

Miss HILL — No longer is it called the VFL, it is called the AFL, so why should the grand final be played only in the one state?

Miss WILLIAMS — We welcome all the other interstate teams into the AFL competition. It started off as the VFL and it has now evolved into the Australian Football League. We welcome them into Victoria to play in our competition.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 3 Miss BAUDINETTE — Are you not becoming very prejudiced calling supporters from interstate ‘Johnny-come-lately’ supporters? You are saying that their ideas are less important than those of Victorians.

Miss HOLLOW — The term ‘Johnny-come-lately’ supporter indicates that they have only just joined the AFL. The first interstate team joined the AFL competition only 10 years ago and the VFL has been in existence for more than 100 years. When we are calling the supporters ‘Johnny-come-lately’, it is simply saying that they are not as experienced in the way our football is played and where it should be played.

Miss GRABAU — What are your thoughts on the convenience of the MCG when some fans of the game may be unable to reach the ground. Do you not think a variety of venues for the game would be a far better option in the interests of supporters?

Miss HEYES — The AAMI Stadium only holds 45 000 whereas the MCG holds up to 80 000, so it is convenient that it does hold more people, and you can make a holiday out of it if you go there.

Mr LUGG — If we do not ever change our rhythm we would still be living without electricity. Also if tradition was always the same we would still kill people as punishment, so I think maybe you should change the rhythm, don’t you?

Mr LEINER — Australia is a very young country so it is important to hold on to our traditions. If we let go of them, one day we will no longer have any.

Miss BUTLER — By stating that the MCG is the only place to hold a grand final, are you implying that if in the future a better stadium was built that could hold many more thousands of fans you would deny those thousands of fans the right to view the final because of petty tradition?

Miss HOLLOW — You are calling tradition petty, but when we come here, say, we are upholding a tradition by saying ‘Honourable Speaker’ at the start; that is tradition and it is not petty. The MCG only holds 80 000, so yes, if there was a stadium that was bigger — but it is more about the atmosphere. If you are going to the MCG to see a grand final, like your grandfather and great grandfather before you, you are holding on to a tradition that is not petty.

Mr HAMMER — With a large percentage of football teams coming from interstate why isn’t the grand final played in another state, especially in certain circumstances such as if two interstate teams were playing in the grand final?

Miss HEYES — Because of the capacity, as I said before.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Your time has expired. I thank Parkdale Secondary College for doing such a good job and answering all the great questions. I also thank Brauer College for its questions.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 4 TOPIC 3 — The productivity gains of genetically modified food outweigh the potential risks to consumers.

Presenting school — Charlton College

Challenging school — Horsham College

Miss THOMPSON — The appearance of genetically modified (GM) food in the marketplace has resulted in a firestorm of public debate, scientific discussion and media coverage. Some might say it is bad and defies the makings of God, while others would say it is all part of modernisation. They are right; it is part of modernisation.

As the world is always growing we will always need more food to feed the population. Already many problems have been ironed out. On the other hand, by using GM, scientists have made potatoes that bruise less easily. It is all a picture of bigger and better things to come.

At this point the phrase ‘genetically modified food’ can be used to refer to any product that gets some of its content from an organism that has been genetically modified. It is so much more than getting a kangaroo’s genes and placing them inside pet mice so that they can escape from a cat, although they have not yet done this. It is about improvement and above all, quality.

An advance in genetic engineering is the creation of soybeans that are herbicide tolerant. That means farmers can spray their crops with things like Roundup. Genetically modified food will not only be another step into the future to come but it also creates opportunities and solves problems that are becoming problematic in our world today, such as world hunger. It will also assist in lowering the unemployment rate by creating more jobs in the food industry, along with many other things.

Even animals can be genetically modified to be leaner, grow faster and need less food. They could be modified to have special characteristics, such as greater milk production in cows. These modifications again lead to improved productivity for farmers and ultimately lower costs for the consumer.

Modified stocks could perhaps prevent outbreaks such as foot-and-mouth disease which has devastated many farmers and local economies. No such products have been released to date. However, some are under consideration for release — for example, GM salmon capable of growing almost 30 times faster than natural salmon may soon be approved by the FDA — the US Food and Drug Administration — for release into open waters. Some others are apples that resist insect attack; bananas free of virus and worm parasites; coffee with a lower caffeine content; cabbages that resist caterpillar attack; melons that have a longer shelf life. All of these would have a large beneficial effect on farmers, exports, and numerous other companies, and sole producers that need agriculture to survive today’s growing costs.

Proponents of the GM crops claim that advantages may be many such as improved storage of nutritional quality, pest and disease resistance, selective herbicide tolerance, tolerance of water, temperature and saline extremes, improved animal welfare, higher yields and quality.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Your time has expired. It is now time for Horsham College to ask the hard questions.

Mr ROSS — What is the relevance of putting kangaroo genes in mice?

Mr LAMOUR — That term was simply used as an example. It is all part of the picture of better things to come. You could easily do something like that if the technology was around. It is just a case of getting to that, except it might not be necessary to do that.

Mr NORSWORTHY — What gives man the right to play God?

Mr WHYKES — We are not playing God; we are merely keeping up with what the world needs. We always need more food, there will always be hunger, so why not see if we can try to fix it.

Mr McDONALD — What happens when everything is genetically modified?

Mr WILLEY — Everything will be bigger and better. Like we said in the speech, potatoes will not bruise as easily.

Mr TUCKER — Is it true that genetically modified crops will harm existing crops?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 5 Mr WHYKES — We have no prior research into the question that has been asked so we cannot really comment.

Miss GRABAU — Many of these foods may be immune from insect infestation, but do genetically modified foods still have the same nutritional content?

Mr LARMOUR — They do have the same nutritional content, if not more.

Mr DANKHA — You said that there will soon be coffee with less caffeine. Is it not true that coffee is used because it has more caffeine than most other drinks?

Mr LARMOUR — Coffee is simply a drink. It just happens that caffeine is in it. There is already decaffeinated coffee.

Mr DREW — Would you not agree that getting an unknown disease from a genetically modified potato that does not bruise would be a lot worse than having to peel the bruise off?

Mr WHYKES — As you know, the world is getting faster so people might not have the time to peel potatoes and might need them right away. It would take more time to peel the bruises off the potatoes.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr WHYKES — Well, it would — so it would take less time.

The ACTING SPEAKER — I remind the house that there are to be no interjections while any honourable member is speaking.

Mr RAMAKRISHNA — How cost-effective will genetically modified foods be? Would it be more cost-effective? Is it environmentally friendly?

Mr WILLEY — It would be a bit more expensive, but you would get the food, like a tomato, bigger, so you would get more out of it.

Mr MELKI-WEGNER — You mentioned there was a food shortage in the world. How will it help to feed people food that is potentially dangerous?

Miss THOMPSON — It has not actually been proven that it would be potentially more dangerous. What is the difference between giving them food that is potentially dangerous and their not getting food at all and suffering from malnutrition?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 6 TOPIC 4 — Tourism to the sensitive environment of Antarctica should be banned.

Presenting school — Colac High School

Challenging school — Flinders Christian Community College

Mr LUGG — Honourable Acting Speaker, I want to convince you and my many esteemed colleagues here today that it is a huge mistake to make the sensitive and pristine environment of Antarctica a tourist destination. Antarctica is a largely undisturbed wilderness region, which will experience significant environmental problems, such as climate change, pollution and risks to the many unique and endangered flora and fauna species.

Antarctica is the coldest, windiest and driest place on Earth. Who would want to holiday in a destination such as this? The coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth has been recorded there — minus 88 degrees Celsius! The country is made inhospitable by extreme cold, floating ice shelves and a massive permanent ice sheet, which occupies 98 per cent of the land mass. The remaining 2 per cent of the land is barren rock.

There are no permanent human residents, and the only permanent structures of any size in Antarctica are scientific research stations. Where would all these holidaymakers stay? There are no five-star resorts in Antarctica.

Tourism, like most human activities, has an environmental impact. When tourists visit Antarctica the problems associated with pollution include rubbish dropped onto ice or blown across the land and/or covered by snow. It takes a long time for rubbish to break down in this extreme climate — a banana peel would take over 100 years to disintegrate fully. Rubbish disposal triggered by burning produces air pollution. Disposal of sewage means it either gets buried in the snow or flushed into the ocean, making marine animals sick or killing them.

Knowing Antarctica is such an inhospitable and remote location, one needs to consider how these tourists are going to travel there. Tourist ships visiting there means oil spills cause major destruction to marine life. Oil washes up on the shore, which damages breeding and feeding grounds. If a plane or boat were to crash there it would kill off more wildlife than if it were to crash on the coast of Australia. Plane crashes do as much damage as boats and are sometimes more common. Noise pollution that comes from planes and boats scares the wildlife of Antarctica in their natural habitats.

We have not even considered the impact of a disaster and the effect of hypothermia, chill factors and extreme temperatures and the perils of sending in emergency rescue teams if, heavens forbid, a catastrophe such as a plane or shipping accident should occur. No doubt, we are all very aware of the story of the Titanic and what happened when this ‘unsinkable’ ship hit an iceberg.

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sets out tightly drawn rules governing human activities. However, when this treaty was signed the was no consideration of the true impact of this treaty on tourism. Is this not saying that it is much better to prevent the effects of tourism than to try to cure the impact after the event has occurred? Thank you. I hope I have convinced you not to travel to Antarctica.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Just about! Thank you, Honourable Member, your time has expired.

Miss STEWART — How is Australia supposed to fund the Antarctic research stations without the profits from tourism and without seeing just what we are funding?

Mr LUGG — Without anybody going there nothing is going to happen. That is the way it should be, because Antarctica has wildlife that does not need to be bossed around.

Miss RICHARDS — In your argument on feasibility you stated, ‘Where would all these holidaymakers stay? There are no five-star resorts in Antarctica.’. However, over 10 000 tourists travel by way of cruises, exhibitions and flights to Antarctica each season. Is this not the type of tourism we are already talking about and, thus, is tourism to Antarctica not already feasible?

Mr WADE — There are no permanent hotels in Antarctica. Planes and ships are not sitting there causing a lot of pollution. They are just travelling around the area. They never even stop there hardly.

Mr CHATTERJEE — You quoted that we have not even considered the impact of a disaster in Antarctica, however, we accept that many things do go wrong in Antarctica and we accept that many things do go wrong all over the world. Should we then stop any travel to any area of the world that presents any risk to the public, because that is what you are in turn stating?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 7 Mr LUGG — As I said, Antarctica is the coldest, windiest and driest place on earth. There is much more chance of a disaster there than anywhere else in the world.

Mr BLAKE — Regarding the statement about the disposal of sewage either getting buried or flushed into the ocean, making animals around it die, there many natural chemicals such as lime that can break down a banana and waste in less than 10 days. Considering these along with many other alternatives to dispose of waste, are there not many other ways without hurting the environment?

The ACTING SPEAKER — I will break the rules and allow a response to that question. We are over time.

Mr WADE — How are we going to cart millions of tons of lime over there to dispose of all the waste that could be deposited there?

The ACTING SPEAKER — Thank you very much to Colac High School and Flinders Christian Community College for those thoughtful questions and answers. I would like to open for questions from the floor for another 3 minutes.

Mr LEINER — If you could limit the places that we could explore, then where would we be now?

Mr WADE — Exploring all the pristine environments of the earth was a mistake that we have made. Some of them we can never find now. This is why Antarctica should not be travelled in.

Mr RAMAKRISHNA — Will overpopulation not force us to ultimately migrate to the likes of Antarctica? Why not colonise it while we are still ahead?

Miss RYAN — It is too cold to travel to Antarctica anyway. We will probably die of hypothermia or other diseases. Why not just go to a warmer climate and migrate somewhere else?

Mr CHATTERJEE — You use the fact that the Titanic hit an iceberg and crashed nearly 100 years ago on the other side of the world. Do you first of all not believe that we have come a long way since 1912, and do you not think that we have learnt from our mistakes?

Mr LUGG — With the icebergs in the way, we cannot change that. If the icebergs are there, they are there.

Miss MACALISTER-BILLS — You say that Antarctica is inhospitable and barren, but would people not relish the idea of seeing penguins and polar bears in the wild, even with cold weather conditions?

Miss RYAN — Why do you not just go to Phillip Island? You can see penguins and stuff there as well.

Miss BOLES — If Antarctica is such an undesirable place, then why are tourism and professional positions there highly coveted?

The ACTING SPEAKER — Our 3 minutes for questions from the floor has expired. I would like to thank very much Colac High School, Flinders Christian Community College and the other questioners from the floor. Thank you very much.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 8 TOPIC 5 — Tail docking of dogs should be outlawed.

Presenting school — St Brigid’s College, Horsham

Challenging school — Avila College

Miss ROSS — Good morning, Acting Speaker, opposing team, fellow students and teachers. The docking of dogs’ tails should be outlawed. Tail docking of dogs is the inhumane and horrendous act of painfully removing a puppy’s tail for no apparent reason other than cosmetic purposes. We need to take the stance the ACT Legislative Assembly took on the outlawing of tail docking. On this decision the Australian Veterinary Association president, Dr Ian Denney, said:

This decision should pave the way for follow-up action by all other states and territories to put an end to this cruel and unnecessary practice. Our organisation, which represents the majority of veterinarians across Australia, has long campaigned against cosmetic tail docking because it serves no valid purpose. It is really a traditional practice based essentially on the whims and fashion ideas of human beings. What really happens is that young puppies are butchered, usually without any form of anaesthetic or pain relief, by having all or part of their tail chopped off. It is often done by dog breeders with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a respected advocate group for the treatment of animals, strongly believes that cosmetic tail docking is a painful and totally unnecessary tradition that should no longer be permitted to continue.

I am going to describe the cruel and painful procedure of tail docking. It is done to puppies that are between two and five days old. Advocates of tail docking claim that it does not cause pain or discomfort to the dog. How can this be the case when it is cutting through muscles, tendons and up to seven pairs of highly sensitive nerves and severing bone and cartilage by using a pair of scissors or a very tight rubber band?

Have you ever heard a baby cry just because it is hungry? Compare that to the noise a puppy makes when its tail is being severed. A 1996 study of behaviour of pups during docking reported they shrieked, with the vocalisation ceasing on average of 138 seconds later. Because of this horrific procedure one in 20 dogs dies each year. There is simply no excuse for continuing this painful procedure as it is solely an outdated hunting tradition from hunting dogs. This can no longer be the purpose, because dogs are no longer used for hunting in Australia.

The hygiene of dogs is also not a defence for this procedure. If you are responsible enough to own a pet you should be responsible enough to look after it properly.

In conclusion, we believe Australia should follow the tail docking bans in the enlightened and humane countries of Finland, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. Dogs are beautiful creatures relative to the size of their tails. If the breeding community will not change its ways, we must legislate for it to do so. Thank you.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Now I would like to invite questions to St Brigid’s College from Avila College. We have 3 minutes for questions, so here we go!

Miss SIOMOS - After extensive research we have sought the professional opinion of the leader of the Clinic of Veterinary Surgeons. We have found that pups are born relatively immature and immobile. For up to the first 10 days after birth their nervous system, too, is not yet fully developed, therefore the docking of these pups’ tails is at such an undeveloped stage of their lives that they feel little or no pain. What then are your thoughts on this?

Mr FRECKLETON — Even though they may not feel too much pain, the wound is still open to infection, and as they grow older bacteria and all sorts of stuff can get in there, causing much more pain later.

Miss SIOMOS — I have a question relating to the open wound on the tail. Should not dressing somehow be put on it so it does not get infected and so the dog does not actually feel the pain from any infection that may be evident?

Miss McGENNISKEN — Most breeders, when they dock a puppy’s tail, just cut it off. They do not care, they just leave it, and most do not put a dressing on it, so it will be open to infection.

Miss FINNIGAN — Your statistics date back to 1996 and suggest that tail docking is painful. Our far more recently dated research suggests that tail docking is painless. How can you be sure your findings are still valid when today’s veterinary procedures have since advanced so greatly?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 9 Mr FRECKLETON — How could cutting off a dog’s tail not hurt, when cartilage, tendons, muscles and all different sorts of things are in the tail? It will hurt. It is like chopping your arm off. There is no anaesthetic or anything to help the pain. It is just chop and it is off!

Miss GRABAU — As we have previously mentioned, at such a young age the nerve endings in these puppies have not yet fully developed, so no pain is actually felt. What are your thoughts on this?

Miss TAGGERT — Just because their nervous system is not fully developed does not mean they do not feel any pain at all.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Thank you very much, honourable members. The time for questions from Avila College has expired. I will now take questions from the floor. If any other honourable members would like to put a question to St Brigid’s College, now is the time. I should also remind you that it is the person who stands up first who gets to ask the next question.

Mr HOUGH — Is not chopping off the tail of a puppy the same as nailing a horseshoe to a horse’s foot?

Mr FRECKLETON — When a horseshoe is being nailed to a horse the nail goes into a part that has no nerves and that in it, so they cannot feel a thing. A dog’s tail is quite different.

Miss BOND — You are saying that we should not cosmetically modify dogs, but what about people? People have cosmetic surgery and many seem to have had no harm from it, so why should we outlaw it for dogs?

Miss ROSS — People can talk; they have a choice of whether they do it or not. Dogs have owners, and they make the choice for them.

Mr LUGG — Before their tails are chopped off the dogs obviously have to have some sort of numbing substance to prevent the pain. Do they? Is this true?

Miss TAGGERT — This is not always true. Some people just do it in the backyard with no form of anaesthetic or pain relief.

Miss GRABAU — Though hunting in Australia may have been outdated, in countries such as England hunting is still in practice. Your topic is that the docking of dogs’ tails should be outlawed. Do you consider the discontinuing of tail docking to be solely for Australia, or also for those countries, such as England, which require the procedure for the protection of their dogs?

Mr FRECKLETON — A tail does not help a dog hunt, so yes, it should be outlawed in the other countries as well because it serves no purpose when they are trying to track down game and things.

Miss RYAN — You cannot stop people from docking dogs’ tails. It is like trying to stop people dealing drugs. What are your thoughts on that?

Miss McGENNISKEN — We may not be able to stop it, but we can stop most people from doing it. Dealing drugs is totally different to docking tails, because it is the user’s choice, not the owner’s.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Thank you very much, honourable members. The time for questions from the floor has expired. I thank Avila College and St Brigid’s College for their contributions. I think Avila had a very hard topic there, because I think we all feel sorry for those little puppies. Thank you, anyway.

Before I hand over to the next Acting Speaker, I would just like to say a few words. I would like to thank all the schools for coming and participating today. There have been some very thoughtful, considered and intelligent speeches and questions and responses. You are obviously well prepared, and I congratulate you on that. I also thank all the teachers and parents for giving up their time today to bring the students into the Parliament. I have very much enjoyed being with you here today. Congratulations; you have done very well. I will now hand over to the next Acting Speaker, Steve Herbert.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 10 TOPIC 6 — Mandatory detention of those who seek refuge and asylum in Australia should be abolished.

Presenting school — St Helena Secondary College

Challenging school — Gippsland Grammar

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Steve Herbert) — I invite Miss Samantha Jones to make a presentation on behalf of St Helena Secondary College.

Miss JONES — Today’s debate is that mandatory detention of those who seek refuge or asylum in Australia should be abolished. We say yes, this should happen.

Before we go any further, let us have a good look at what it is we are talking about. We say that people who have to flee their homes because they fear for their lives due to war, famine, disease or natural disasters should be allowed to seek permanent or temporary asylum in our country without facing mandatory detention. We believe that this will: (a), add to the rich and diverse nature of this country; and (b), fulfil our obligations under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees.

Let us start now by focusing on why mandatory detention of those who seek refuge or asylum should be abolished. Why should we as Australians pull together to help these poor, innocent people? Because it is the right thing to do. It is right economically, it is right ethically, but most of all it is right morally. We as Australians pride ourselves on our morals, and this is just one of them.

Why else should mandatory detention be abolished? Because we agreed to it. When as a nation Australia signed the Declaration of Human Rights we agreed to it. We agreed that everybody has the right to have a fair chance of a safe and healthy life, and the chance to improve their life by having a decent home, good food, an education, employment, and access to enjoyment through music, sports, arts and other hobbies and activities.

Which part of mandatory detention covers that? None of it. Why should mandatory detention be abolished? Because it is a violation of human rights.

We have a better option. The better option is this: refugees who make their way to Australia are given a home, food and a decent opportunity at a normal life. The refugees would then try to get jobs. They would consume jobs such as fruit pickers or other simple jobs that Australia has trouble finding employees for. So eventually refugees getting jobs is going to help boost Australia’s economy. Refugees would then have money to spend on goods and would in turn pay tax to the Australian government.

But you ask: how do we keep track of such a large number of refugees? When the refugees arrive in Australia, they are given a bracelet, necklace or anklet which cannot be removed by them. Hidden inside this practical piece of normal looking jewellery is a tracking device. This device gives the government a clear view of where the refugees are travelling. As well as this, the refugees will have to check in at their local police station twice a week. Really this plan is a hassle-free, pleasant way of introducing refugees into Australian society.

The ACTING SPEAKER — I thank the honourable member for her speech. I invite the challenging school, Gippsland Grammar, to ask questions.

Miss BOND — The Honourable Samantha Jones said it is morally right to give the refugees a home, but is it morally right to give them a tracking device that they are not privy to? Surely this is an infringement of their human and moral rights, treating them the same as you would treat a criminal. How again, I ask, is this morally right?

Miss BUTLER — If you say giving refugees a piece of jewellery is morally incorrect, do you then agree that it is not morally incorrect to keep them locked up in mandatory detention? Which one would you rather, I ask? Would you rather wear jewellery or be cooped up in a little cage?

Mr DREW — How can giving refugees and asylum seekers a home be justified when many Australians work for decades to buy their own homes, many do not have one and others live on the streets?

Miss BUTLER — These people who are living in streets are not living in war-torn countries or dying of famine. They do not have Third World countries that are covered in disease. People like refugees also need our help. Yes, I agree we should help the homeless and disabled, but at the moment refugees should be our no. 1 priority.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 11 Miss CUMMING — The Honourable Samantha Jones stated that one of the reasons for abolishing mandatory detention is our obligations under the United Nations declaration of human rights. What are these obligations?

Miss JONES — As I have mentioned before, when Australia signed the declaration of human rights, we were obliged to agree that everybody has the right to a fair chance for a safe and healthy life and a chance to improve your life by having a decent home, good food, education and employment, and access to enjoyment of music, arts, sports and other hobbies and activities. Mandatory detention does not cover this.

The ACTING SPEAKER — We are just about out of time for questions from the challenging school. I will open it up to the rest of the schools to ask questions.

Miss SIOMOS — I have a question relating to the refugees with their passports, because I have heard that most of them have passports but they throw them overboard because they are threatened that if they do not get rid of them they will be killed on the boat. What are your thoughts?

Miss BOLES — Are you saying it is Australia’s fault that is happening? Australia is a humane society, and if these people are so scared that this is going to happen, then are you saying there is nothing wrong with having passports — they should just hold on to them and hope for the best?

Mr LEINER — You say we are having trouble finding people to fill these jobs, but this is not true. If you let these people take our jobs, more Australians will be out of work, do you not agree?

Mr KEARNEY — It is true that we have people who work at jobs such as fruit picking, but they are backpackers who only stay for a few weeks, and that is cash in hand, and then the government does not get any money back from that, unlike if we were paying refugees, where the government would be getting tax back on the payments.

Mr WADE — If everyone who has trouble in other countries came here to seek asylum, there would be a lot of them that would not behave. There are not enough houses for Australians as it is. They would take up a lot of space. What are your thoughts on this?

Miss BOLES — As we explained in our speech, we wish to enforce tracking bracelets. In doing so we strongly believe that we will be able to control any illicit behaviour that may take place. Besides, these people are here for protection so it will be a rare case when one causes trouble. Let’s think about it: if you were here for safety, would you really wish to compromise your position? I do not think so.

Miss BOND — The Honourable Samantha Jones mentioned that everyone would be given a home, but where would the money for this come from and how would it be distributed?

The ACTING SPEAKER — An excellent question, but I am afraid time has expired for questions from the floor.

I would like to thank both St Helena Secondary College and Gippsland Grammar for their excellent contributions.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 12 TOPIC 7 — Residents who complain about the noise levels from live music venues should just move elsewhere.

Presenting school — Lalor North Secondary College

Challenging school — East Doncaster Secondary College

Mr DANKHA — Honourable Acting Speaker, today we want to bring to the attention of the house the issue of live music venues and local residents. Recently there has been a trend to live in apartments in highly populated areas. However, a number of residents living in commercial areas want live music venues shut down. This issue has raised great concerns and caused conflicts in the neighbourhood. We believe that the residents complaining about the live music venues should either tolerate the noise or move out.

We believe that it is the residents’ choice that they moved into a commercial area. It is their responsibility to do their homework. The residents should have inspected the neighbourhood and studied the potential development of the area. A commercial area is a noisy area, and these household owners should have known what to expect. Why should a very settled venue and a good business be forced to shut down?

Australia is known worldwide for its love of music and easy access to music venues. Nightclubs, discos, dancing halls, cafes, concert stadiums and other live music venues make up an important part of our society.

If these entertainment venues are closed down we risk changing the dynamic of our community and the fabric of our society.

Most live music venues are the average Australian’s entertainment. Without them our local economy is also in jeopardy. Where will young people go to find release from boredom and social distractions? Where will the battlers and families go on the weekend for an affordable break and family time? In the absence of these venues we are risking more severe social problems. If live music venues are shut down, young people are unable to find a venue to play in and enjoy their music. Residential areas are not suitable for more spaces as live music venues and parties are an inevitable recreation. As a community we need to provide these young people with suitable venues.

In residential areas there are strict laws about loud music. Residents making loud noises are punished with fines. These areas are only suitable for a peaceful and quiet family life. Nevertheless it is different in commercial areas. Commercial areas consist of noisy traffic and disturbances from commercial practices. These areas are mostly suitable for business, tourist attractions and entertainment venues.

A commercial area is not suitable for residents who want silence. A resident is not forced to move to a specific area and must accept the consequences or move elsewhere. It is not the fault of the live music venues, which are only performing their jobs in a legal area. Why should we remove venues that are important to our community? Live music venues have a licence from their councils to operate in their areas. As long as they act according to the law they have the right to keep their business open.

The ACTING SPEAKER — I thank the honourable member for his speech. I invite members from East Doncaster Secondary College to ask questions for 3 minutes.

Mr TAI — You say that the local economy will be in jeopardy if these venues are closed, but where is the evidence?

Mr DANKHA — We researched our speech with our local Whittlesea City Council and we found that our entertainment venues are in a lot of areas and take most of the places of other entertainments. If we closed these down our local community could be in jeopardy because there will not be any other places for them to go.

Miss WAKEFIELD — Will not the efforts to encourage city living be jeopardised if the venues are allowed to continue?

Miss RAHIMOVSKA — People who live in the city are mostly young people so they tend to go out to nightclubs, discos et cetera. There are most of those venues in the city.

Mr HOUGH — If councils encourage mixed use of the city by allowing residential apartments to be constructed alongside commercial venues then should not all stakeholders have the right for equal representation?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 13 Miss RAHIMOVSKA — Residents are already informed of the future development of the area as the council would know if there were sites, like hotels or something, being built. If there are already houses or development around there the residents would be informed of the nightclub or whatever is being built.

Mr HOUGH — You talk about loud music being an issue. Is it also the type of people — —

The ACTING SPEAKER — I am sorry, our time has expired. I invite honourable members from the rest of the Parliament to put questions.

Mr WADE — Do you not think young people go to the movies or another place for fun? They do not always go to music venues to help release boredom. What are your thoughts on this?

Mr DANKHA — Most movies or cinemas are considered entertainment venues and, if not, then they should go somewhere else.

Mr FRECKLETON — It is unfair for people to tolerate the noise. If you are an elderly person and you have just moved into your dream home and spent most of your money on it, you would be extremely upset if you found out that there was going to be a lot of noise around. It would be unfair to expect an elderly person to move if they did not have a lot of money. How would you solve this problem caused by selfish people making loud noise?

Mr RAMAKRISHNAN — As we said in our speech, whoever buys the house knows what is going on around their community. There are way more houses around the community not near music venues. Elderly people have the choice: they can get cheaper apartments or they can build their dream home near a silent place. They are not being forced to build or buy a house near a music venue.

Mr SPURRELL — If the elderly people have bought their houses in a residential area before the music venue is built, why not move the music venue somewhere else?

Miss SRIBALACHANDRAN — The council is usually informed when these venues are moving into a residential area. If you are not happy with the noise then you should sign a petition.

Miss BUTLER — Can you please give a definition for a live music venue? You speak about commercial areas and venues, but what about Blue Light discos and parties — —

The ACTING SPEAKER — I am afraid time for questions has expired. That is the end of this topic.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 14 TOPIC 8 — Despite calls from the Egyptian government for the return of the Rosetta stone, this important artefact should stay in the British Museum.

Presenting school — Star of the Sea College

Challenging school — Orbost Secondary College

Miss GOODEAR — The Rosetta stone, which dates from 196 BC, was discovered in 1799 by Napoleon in the Nile delta. It is the key that unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1801 Napoleon’s army was defeated by the British who relinquished the stone to Britain under the treaty of Alexandria. Britain therefore gained lawful ownership of the Rosetta stone.

For 200 long years the Rosetta stone has successfully been exhibited in the British Museum. The stone forms a centrepiece of the museum’s Egyptology collection and each year it is viewed by millions of visitors. Now, however, as part of a worldwide program to return stolen antiquities the Egyptians want the stone back.

If the British government refuses, the Egyptian government has threatened to take a more aggressive approach. Does this very significant and irreplaceable artefact really belong to the Egyptians and do they have the right to claim it back so aggressively?

When Napoleon discovered the Rosetta stone the Egyptians did not consider it an important archaeological object. In fact it had been used as mere construction material. The Egyptians recognised the stone’s significance only after French archaeologists used it to decode ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Only after they realised what they had lost did the Egyptians want the stone back.

Because the Rosetta stone is such an important and precious artefact we believe it should be displayed in a secure museum, within a country that is safe and politically stable. The museum should be easily accessible to large numbers of visitors and scholars, and the Egyptian museum does not meet these criteria. Who knows, for example, if a conflict in Egypt’s neighbour Israel may spill over into Egypt itself. Look at what happened in Iraq. In the recent war Iraqi profiteers looted the Iraqi museum and were happy to sell its precious items to the highest bidder. Many irreplaceable artefacts have been lost to the world forever.

How could we ever risk this happening to such an important piece of Egyptian history as the Rosetta stone. Britain, on the other hand, is a wealthy, politically stable country. The British Museum is known for its security and is definitely a more suitable museum for the protection of the Rosetta stone. Britain is also more accessible than Egypt, so many more people would have the opportunity of seeing one of the most famous historical items if is displayed in Great Britain. The Egyptians made a huge mistake 200 years ago and now have to suffer the consequences. The British are not keeping the Rosetta stone for themselves out of spite; they are keeping it because it rightfully belongs to them. They did not steal the stone from Egypt. Napoleon had lawful ownership of the stone and he surrendered it to the British. Britain is not required to return the stone to Egypt. Nothing has been stolen, so nothing has to be returned.

Miss MACALISTER-BILLS — I am a little confused. You say the Rosetta Stone is safe in Britain, but surely the French have claims to the stone too? Is it not a more acceptable, stable and mature country today since the invasion of Iraq?

Miss GAYLARD — When Napoleon discovered the Rosetta stone he had lawful ownership of it and then relinquished it to the British army when he surrendered. So Britain, in fact, has lawful ownership.

Miss BULMER — Back in medieval times Egyptians lived and worked around artefacts such as the Rosetta stone everyday, so why do you blame the Egyptians for not realising the value of the stone 200 years ago?

Miss GOODEAR — We are not blaming them for not knowing the value of the stone, but we are stating that they did not know and that they only wanted it back after they realised how valuable it was.

Miss SMART — Stealing is clearly explained in the Oxford Dictionary as taking away for one’s own use without lawful right. The same description matches the movement of the Rosetta stone. Why would it be right for Great Britain to keep the stone when it is the wrong thing to do?

Miss KEMP — As was stated before, Napoleon relinquished claim to the stone to Great Britain and therefore it is in their possession.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 15 Miss ROBINSON — You say Egyptologists need ready access to the Rosetta stone, but would it not be more accessible if it was in Egypt as the base of Egyptology?

Miss MELKI-WEGNER — Is it not unfair to assert that just because Egypt is located near the Middle East it cannot look after a piece of its own history?

Miss KEMP — It is not an assumption, but it is a risk and we do not want to take that risk with a stone that provided us with the knowledge of something that is so rare and so valuable and is obviously so useful.

Miss ROSS — As you have said, Great Britain is a better off country than Egypt, but the stone was found in Egypt, not Great Britain. At least it should give the money that the stone has made to the Egyptian people?

Miss KEMP — They have not actually called for money, all they have called for is the return of the stone.

Mr KEARNEY — In your speech you said that if the Egyptians made a mistake they would have to suffer the consequences, but you also said it occurred 200 years ago. Why should the descendants of these Egyptians suffer the consequences of the mistake of their ancestors. Is not the Rosetta stone more a part of Egypt’s heritage than Great Britain’s?

Miss KEMP — It was actually British physicists and French scholars who discovered the significance of the stone and without their work the Egyptians would still be using it as construction material and nothing more.

Miss SIOMOS — Has not the hieroglyphics translation from the Rosetta stone been documented digitally so it is available for reference to scientists, so why should not the stone be returned. What are your thoughts?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 16 TOPIC 9 — There is no point being an active citizen if you are under 18 because no-one listens to kids.

Presenting school — Whitefriars College

Challenging school — Colac High School

Mr SPURRELL — Children under the age of 18 are not getting enough say in society because the government is not listening to kids. Why should we take any interest in the government and society when we are not accepted by our own society as adults until we are aged 18 or over?

There are youth groups all throughout the country who are made by the government or branches of the government to have a say, but really they are not listened to.

Kids are busy with their academic studies, exams and tests, sporting and musical commitments. They do not want to waste their time with the government and cannot present issues to the government because it is not willing to listen to the youth of today who will become the leaders of tomorrow. If the government would accept children as members of society today, maybe children would share their ideas and see the point of going to school and why you cannot drive a car, smoke or drink until you are 18. If the government would listen and give children their proper respect and their place in society, children would not spend their nights out on the streets smoking and drinking.

Even though there are youth groups trying to do their part for the community and the government, the government overlooks them and pretends they are not there, and when children do not get rewarded for their hard work they give up for the community and do not bother with the government any more because they think the government overlooks them because they are not aged 18.

In conclusion, if the government stopped worrying about the adults of today and getting their votes, the children of tomorrow would stand up, and the government should see them and allow them to be respected and start looking at them for their votes, because we are the leaders of tomorrow.

Miss RYAN — How do you define an active citizen?

Mr SPURRELL — We define an active citizen as someone aged 18 years or older who can drink, smoke, drive and vote.

Mr LUGG — What should a person under 18 do to be heard?

Mr KOENS — We really cannot do anything. If we protest in a large group they still ignore us — for instance, the marches against the war. We had huge youth marches against it, but still they went on with the war against Iraq, and we all saw the consequences of that.

Miss BROWN — Why is it that only governments listen to kids under the age of 18?

Mr KOENS — I do not think you quite understand our topic here. We say there is no point being an active citizen. We are not saying that we are not active citizens.

Mr WADE — What is the current position of youth in society?

Mr COLANGELO — Youth in society today — to be leaders of tomorrow pretty much. We have no part in society now, but our use is for tomorrow when we are older and over the age of 18.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Time has expired. I now ask for questions from the chamber.

Mr HAMMER — You have mainly focused on government issues. Being an active citizen can cover many topics. Many people under the age of 18 have had a lot of success and influence over society in other areas such as music, art and sport.

Mr RAINE — Although we have had a lot of achievements in sport we do not really have a say in what happens to our country. Because we are below the age of 18 we cannot vote and have a say in what the government does and how it attacks certain issues.

Miss SPINKS — Isn’t this meeting here today a chance for young people to express their point of view on a range of topics?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 17 Mr KOENS — If you look at it, this was arranged by schools so we could debate these topics. Mostly the educationalists set this up, not the government, so our opinion does not matter to them unless we are agreeing with them.

Miss ROSS — The rules the government makes are for a reason and all children mature at different times. What are your thoughts?

Mr KOENS — Yes, I agree — for instance, if you take most of my school, they are very childish; they have only just discovered pea shooters — that wasn’t much fun! Yes, they all mature at different ages, but those of us who mature faster might want to do something and might want to have their say in the world at a younger age than will others.

Miss GRABAU — As you say, kids of the future generation will be the deciders of how our country forms. You cannot say that every endeavour has not been made to ensure the benefit of our future.

Mr SPURRELL — No, we cannot say that. Every endeavour has been done to put them into society, but they are not part of society.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Time has expired. I thank members from both schools and those who asked questions from the chamber for their excellent contributions to the debate.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 18 TOPIC 10 — One day during NAIDOC Week should be a public holiday across Australia

Presenting school — Shepparton High School

Challenging school — Parkdale Secondary College

Mr VALE — Today in this place we have students from across Victoria coming together to learn first hand about parliamentary processes. It might only be one day in our lives that we get to sit in this place, but I am sure we will all remember this day for the rest of our lives. One day can make a huge difference.

The experience of having one day to learn about something is very powerful in changing our understanding. In one day a lot can be achieved. Australians need one day each year to celebrate the rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands heritage of this great nation and so increase the awareness of this heritage for all people. Having one day as a public holiday during NAIDOC Week will provide the opportunity to unite the Australian people with a common understanding of the indigenous societies and cultures that make us, as Australians, unique.

For too long Australians have been largely unaware of the rich culture of the original inhabitants of this country, and it is time we declared one day during NAIDOC Week as a public holiday. This will demonstrate to the nation and the rest of the world that we value Australians having the knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands culture.

We are all very much aware that having one day as a public holiday for Anzac Day has made a great difference to our understanding of the Anzac tradition and has deepened our patriotic spirit. It is now time that Australians are also given the opportunity to celebrate the rich cultural heritage of the traditional inhabitants of Australia and the Torres Strait Islands. Having one day as a nationally acknowledged public holiday during NAIDOC Week will make a significant difference to our understanding of our rich indigenous cultural heritage.

The United States of America has 10 public holidays and Japan has 14. In Europe, France has 11. Clearly, it would be most reasonable for Australia to increase the number of national public holidays from 7 to 8 to celebrate NAIDOC Week.

I think many of you would know about Anzac. As we do not have a public holiday for NAIDOC Week I need to tell you that NAIDOC has evolved from the work commenced in 1924 and that NAIDOC stands for National Aboriginal Islander Day Observance Committee.

Yes, one day during NAIDOC Week should be a public holiday across Australia. Just one day can make a big difference to Australia’s understanding of its traditional cultural heritage. One day in 365 should be a public holiday to demonstrate to us all, and indeed the world, that Australia has a unique culture that should be valued, known and remembered.

Miss HEYES — Do you think that a public holiday would be used respectfully or would it just been seen as another day off work?

Miss PARSONS — Of course it would be used respectfully. We would all unite together as one and get to know about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands cultures of Australia.

Miss WILLIAMS — Why is it necessary to have a public holiday for NAIDOC Week? Could it not be tackled another way to achieve the same objective?

Mr LILLEY — It would be one day out of a whole year. What we want to achieve is to find out about the Aboriginal culture and heritage and to become at one with them.

Mr LEINER — Why is it important for us to understand the cultural traditions of indigenous Australians?

Miss PARSONS — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people of Australia are part of our heritage, so why not? They deserve the right to be recognised as much as us.

Miss HOLLOW — Is there a danger that having a holiday would provoke a backlash against indigenous people receiving preferential treatment?

Mr LILLEY — No, it should not. What we are trying to achieve is a celebration of indigenous Aboriginals.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 19 Miss HEYES — Of the 10 public holidays in America, is there one day that recognises native Americans?

The ACTING SPEAKER — Unfortunately time has expired. Thank you for your questions. I ask other members to ask questions.

Miss GAYLARD — White settlers have been in Australia for the past 200 years so we should already know enough and be celebrating indigenous people. What is one day every year going to do?

Miss CARMINATI — This should be a day to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people because they were here way before white people. Everyone across Australia needs to know something about the Aboriginal heritage because they were here way before white settlers. Don’t you think we should acknowledge that?

Miss BOND — How will having one day as a public holiday increase awareness of our Aboriginal and islander heritage?

Miss PARSONS — We would spend the whole day learning about the culture and doing things that the Aboriginal and islands people would do. At the end of the day we would feel so much better because we would know about Australia’s heritage.

Miss BUTLER — How are we supposed to learn about NAIDOC when we as students are not going to school? Where would we learn about this culture? You said that we would unite as one and learn about NAIDOC. Is that not what people say about Labour Day and the Queen’s Birthday? How many of you actually sat down and bothered to think about why you were not at school on Labour Day?

Miss PARSONS — There would be parades, and everyone would get together. I know Shepparton would make a big deal out of this because of all the Koori and islands people in the area. There would be big celebrations so we could get to know more about the indigenous culture of Australia.

Miss WILLIAMS — If NAIDOC Week has not achieved a greater understanding in 80 years, how will a public holiday make a difference?

The ACTING SPEAKER — The time has expired. I thank both schools for participating in this debate. They were excellent contributions. We should now wait for the students from the Legislative Council to join us in a joint sitting to hear a presentation by the Honourable Robert Doyle, the Leader of the Opposition.

While we are waiting I would like to congratulate the students from all the schools who have participated here. It has been an excellent debate. As the previous speaker commented before, the debate was a lot better than we sometimes hear when Parliament is sitting! I congratulate you on that and will say a few more words about it later.

Before the lavish rebuild of this chamber the difference was that it used to be square and the seats were not anywhere near as comfortable — you would all be wriggling fairly ferociously in the old seats, I can assure you. When the other students come in you might need to sit a bit closer together because it is fairly tight — when there is a division members of Parliament often do that.

I would like now to welcome the Mr Robert Doyle, the Leader of the Opposition, into the chamber. While we still wait for members from the Legislative Council to arrive would you like to ask any questions about the Parliament or what is happening here? Any questions at all. Come on! You are very outspoken, forceful young people. Let us see you jump up.

Miss SIOMOS — I have got a question relating to how many times Parliament gathers for Parliament and discussion a year, or something?

The ACTING SPEAKER — A good question. We sit twice a year. We have a break during winter. It depends on the scheduling of legislation, year in and year out, as to how long we sit for, and the sitting days are normally negotiated between the government and the opposition. Parliament sits roughly 20 weeks of the year.

I welcome members of the Legislative Council to the chamber.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 20 JOINT SITTING OF STUDENTS PARLIAMENT

ADDRESS BY THE MR ROBERT DOYLE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The ACTING SPEAKER — I welcome members who have been participating in the Students Parliament in the Legislative Council chamber to the Legislative Assembly. It has been an excellent day here, as I am sure it has been in the Council chamber. We have a guest speaker now for the Students Parliament. Mr Robert Doyle is the member of Parliament for Malvern and also Leader of the Opposition in Victoria. I will now hand it over to Robert Doyle to address you.

Members applauding.

Mr DOYLE — It is very nice of you to applaud even before I start speaking. Welcome to the Victorian Parliament, which has what are generally regarded as two of the most beautiful chambers of any Parliament in the world. You have been part of a very important process. I will not talk for very long. I am not a guest speaker; I am here to say a couple of words and then I am going to disappear. If you would like to ask me questions, that is fine, too.

I want to congratulate you for taking part in the Students Parliament. What it shows is that you are leaders in your own schools, and I want to talk to you about leadership. I am the Leader of the Liberal Party here in Victoria and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to talk to you about what I think it means to be a leader, and I want to put a challenge to you, given that you have chosen to take part in or have been press-ganged to take part in this exercise. What that shows me is that you are leaders in your school communities.

You might not have thought about your mums and dads as being leaders, but I want you to think about them, because when I think about leadership and what it means to me, it means saying no. It is really easy to say yes to things. It takes real leadership to say no. If you think about your relationship with your mums and dads, I am sure there are occasions when they say no to you when you do not quite understand why. They are not doing it because they want to be miserable or mean. They are doing it because they are showing family leadership, and they are making decisions that are going to affect you. It is much easier to say yes to you, but good parents actually say no as well as saying yes. Good leaders say no as well as yes. I want you to think about your own school lives and the decisions that you make every day, because here is the important part. You are not going through school so that you can get into university or so you can get a job: you are going through school so that you can get into life. I want you to think about what you want to do. I want you to think about making a decision today that is going to make this world a better place, your family a better place, your school community a better place and your friendship group a better group.

What decision can you make today? What can you do, or maybe not do, that adds to your friends, to your family, to your school, to your community, to your street and to your home? Because if you can think of a decision like that, something that you can do or maybe not do, then you are showing leadership and actually adding to our community. What you are really doing is making a difference. If you remember nothing else that I say to you today, I want you to take these three words away with you: making a difference. What are we here for? Not just in this Parliament, not just in schools, not just in our job and not just being mums and dads, but what are we here for unless you actually want to make a difference? Do not think that is going to be world-changing stuff. Maybe it is something that is quite small. But if you can show leadership and do something that helps in one of those groups that I have talked about, if you can make a difference, then you are a real leader, and we can never have enough of them.

I hope you have enjoyed your time here today. I hope you have enjoyed the debate. I am sure you were far better behaved than the Parliament is when it is sitting. I hope you will come back here on many occasions to what is, after all, your Parliament. Thank you very much for coming today; have a good time.

Do you want to ask me any questions? You can if you would like to — abuse, if you would prefer, that is fine.

Mr WERTS — Can you tell Johnny Howard to get the soldiers out of Iraq?

Mr DOYLE — Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, made the decision, and let me tell you that there can be no more difficult decision for an Australian Prime Minister than to commit Australian troops to war. It was not done lightly. In this country, however, unlike the country where we sent troops, at least when we disagree with our Prime Minister we are able to say so. That is one of the reasons we sent troops into Iraq. You may disagree with his

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 21 decision, and you may wish that we were never there, and that is your perfect right, but please never underestimate the difficulty of a decision like that, or how hard it would have been for the Prime Minister to make that decision.

Miss HARTIGAN — Do you agree with the Prime Minister’s decision?

Mr DOYLE — Do I agree with it? Yes, I do. For me it was not a question about whether there are or are not weapons of mass destruction still to be found or ever to be found in Iraq, although it is very interesting that the teams are still there and that question is not yet resolved. For me it was saying to myself as an Australian, ‘Can we accept that regimes like that exist? And are we prepared to do nothing about it, or do we have some international obligation?’.

I hope you do not feel this, but I go around primary schools a lot and one of the things I noticed after 11 September — very worryingly — was the number of paintings on the wall showing the twin towers with the aeroplanes flying into them and the flames exploding out them. If nothing else, I think that shows us how our world has changed. Bali brought that home to us as well. We live now in a changed world. Terrorists and dictators do not respect countries’ borders any more.

So the question for me was: are we prepared as a nation to stand back and allow that regime to continue, or do we wish to be a part of helping to make that a better country? For me it is not just about sending troops to Iraq; it is helping them to build a country which is their own. I believe that country had been taken away from them by that appalling regime, and I believe we did have an obligation, along with the Coalition of the Willing, to do something about it.

It was not just for the people of Iraq. Let me tell you that it also sent a message to every tin-pot dictator — and there are some — around the world. It was to every madman who hates us — and do not mistake that, who hates us — not because of anything that we have done, but just because of who we are. So, yes, I did agree with that decision.

The ACTING SPEAKER — I might have to stop questions there.

Mr DOYLE — Let me take a last one.

The ACTING SPEAKER — A last one.

Miss HILL — What is on at the weekend?

Mr DOYLE — What is on at the weekend? Sadly, given that the Cats are not playing in the finals, not much. But this weekend, on Sunday I intend, as I am sure all of you intend, to be absolutely pampered and showered with extremely expensive presents — and if that does not happen in my family there will be some serious questions asked! We are now in the spring racing season, so I might just have to slip out to the track and make a couple of turf investments. If it were footy, I would be watching my beloved Cats.

The ACTING SPEAKER — Thank you. Let us thank Robert Doyle, the Leader of the Opposition and member for Malvern.

I would like to thank everyone for participating, and I thank the teachers and parents who have come along today and also the teachers who have helped you prepare for today’s Student Parliament.

I am genuine in saying that the level of contributions, questions and speeches has been outstanding. For many of us here who are members of Parliament and who are leaders in the Victorian government, it gives us great strength to know that there are so many young people of such calibre out there. A lot of people talk about young people today. They say, ‘Well, they are not as good as they used to be’ or ‘They are a lot more trouble’, but it gives us great strength to know that fairly soon people of your calibre will be entering the adult world and making a contribution to Victoria. I have no doubt that with the contribution you make, Victoria will be a much better and stronger place. So keep it up. Thank you very much for being here.

Morning session concluded.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 22 STUDENTS PARLIAMENT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

AFTERNOON SESSION

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. A. P. Olexander) took the chair at 12.55 p.m.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — My name is Andrew Olexander, I am one of the members for Silvan Province, an outer eastern suburbs seat of Melbourne. I have been a member of this chamber since 1999, and I sit up there where our lady friends are sitting at the moment. I hope you are enjoying the seat. It is generally a good spot in the chamber as you tend to see and hear most things that happen.

I welcome you all to the Victorian Parliament, although I realise you have been here debating issues all day. My agents around the Parliament tell me you have been doing an extremely good job on your issues, that you have all made very intelligent contributions and the questioning has been of a very high standard. As we continue into this afternoon’s session, I ask you to maintain your very good and high standards in the debate.

There are some very interesting issues to be debated this afternoon. Genetically modified foods is one. The role of being a citizen if you are under 18 is another very important issue. Wind farms will be talked about — quite a controversial issue — and mandatory detention of refugees in Australia is another controversial issue that will be dealt with in today’s debate. I welcome the opportunity to be here as your Acting President.

Could I make one comment for the benefit of honourable members. We have in the Parliament a very dedicated and professional team of Hansard reporters, two of whom are here in the chamber with us this afternoon. You will see them just on the left side of the central table. These people do a very good job. They are highly professional and very good at what they do. But in order for them to accurately record proceedings here this afternoon, when you stand could I ask you to make sure to remember to name yourself and your school and do so very clearly and loudly into the microphone so we have a very good record of what has taken place. With that, welcome and we will commence proceedings.

TOPIC 9 — The productivity gains of genetically modified food outweigh the potential risks to consumers.

Presenting school — Aquinas College

Challenging school — St Bede’s College

Mr SCHLOSSER — Honourable Acting Present, over the last three to four years the question has been raised on many occasions whether or not the productivity gains of genetically modified foods are enough to warrant the risk to consumers created by the alterations of science. Today we will be arguing that the gains of genetically modified food are substantially more realistic than that of the risk to consumers.

As we are in the middle of a drought in Australia at the moment, farmers are in desperate need of more water-efficient plants to save them money and make the impact of farming on Australia’s ecosystem less substantial. Gene alteration could make some of Australia’s largest exports like wheat more water efficient, thus allowing farmers to stay in business and keep Australia’s economy from going to the doghouse.

As well as lowering the amount of our precious water that has to be poured into our crops, modifying the genes of crops could help stop us from needing to use pesticides to protect our crops from the pests that cause so much destruction and waste. Even if people do disagree with genetic modification, making crops resistant to pest problems and therefore making pesticides obsolete will benefit our environment in more ways than genetic modification could ever harm it.

Yet another way that genetic modification can help our struggling Australian environment is by reducing the amount of our land that has to be cultivated and gradually sucked of its nutrients. Although it will not stop the crops from sucking nutrients from the soil, if we can increase the amount of food produced by the same amount of land we would be degrading our land at a much slower rate and thus ensure that our future generations will be able to continue our farming industry as well as bring down the price of food since we would be getting more food from less land.

As well as being able to help Australia through the hardships of drought, genetic modification could help worse-off countries than us. Take a Third World country for instance, with all the charities helping them by bringing food

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 23 from our countries, why not give them crops that have been genetically modified so that they can withstand the hard climate that they live in and allow them to supply for themselves?

If people have a problem with things that are being genetically modified today then they must also have a problem with things that have been genetically modified in the past. Although the genetic modifications of the past were not as substantial as those of nowadays, they still include things like the amount of wheat per stalk being increased as much as possible and even things like the different breeds of dogs.

And finally, if people disagree that the productivity gains of genetically modified food outweigh the possible risk to consumers they can simply not eat it. New legislation is being brought out so that if your product contains genetically modified food you have to label it in some way or another. This means that the arguments between us today are almost pointless since the people who do not mind genetic modification and want to get a cheaper price and help save Australia’s future in farming can, and those who are too rolled up in the minute risk of genetic modification can choose not to.

Mr JONES — What are the risks of cross-pollination, and how can we be sure that the products we are buying are genetically modified or not?

Miss ARBREW — Could you please repeat the question?

Mr JONES — What are the risks of cross-pollination, and how can we be sure that the products we are buying are genetically modified or not?

Mr HUGHES — The risk of cross-pollination is that genes of a plant or a fruit get mixed with one another.

Mr MICHAELIDES — Soya beans have been genetically engineered to resist herbicides. However, it was discovered that a brazil nut gene inserted into a soya bean DNA caused an allergic reaction. Genetically altered cotton plants designed to resist frost produced plants that never ripened. It is obvious that genetically modified foods have the risk of developing a new disease or even a plague. Does this highly possible or potential risk not outweigh the advantages of genetically modified foods?

Mr SCHLOSSER — The allergies caused by the nuts inserted into the soya beans were probably only caused through fault of human error. The nuts, if properly tested, could probably have been avoided.

Mr JONES — In the process of breeding genetically modified foods and making them better, greater and larger — for instance, tomatoes — we can alter their size, make them larger and riper. But at what expense? Will the food lose its natural chemical strength?

Mr HUGHES — For example, with tomatoes you traditionally spray the fruit with herbicides and pesticides, which have been found to be harmful to the environment and to the earth. Genetically modified foods use less chemicals and so far have been found not to be dangerous to the environment, but cannot be completely confirmed until a later date.

Mr MICHAELIDES — In your speech you said if we can increase the amount of food produced by the same amount of land we would be degrading our land at a much slower rate. This is an incorrect statement. How is it possible for our land to undertake the job of producing such a large and unnatural amount of food at one time? Would it not degrade our land at a faster rate because it cannot take that unnatural amount?

Mr SCHLOSSER — It may be degrading the land at a faster rate, but it would be degrading less land at a faster rate. So if you used half an acre and got a crop out of it instead of using maybe 2 acres and getting a crop out of it then it would be the same.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I now call for any other questions on this topic from other schools.

Miss KEENE — It takes between 20 to 30 years to identify the dangers of genetically modified products, so how can we decide now that the gains outweigh the risks?

Miss BOYSEN — We have no proof yet that there has been any damage, but we do know that the foods and products have increased in yield and vitamins, and they have been produced by using less chemicals.

Mr PATSOURA — What are the signs that Australian agriculture is going to the doghouse?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 24 Mr SCHLOSSER — Basically, it just means going out of business. Australia is practically always in a drought, so if we were constantly having to drag on with the weight of the drought on our shoulders it would be much easier if we could use water-efficient plants and get more money so we would not be going out of business.

Mr MICHAELIDES — How will genetically modified food save Australia’s future in farming when it will ultimately destroy our land?

Miss ARBREW — Pesticide sprays are used on traditional crops as well and they also have proven to affect the land and the environment, so either way it is doing the same thing.

Miss KEENE — How do we know that in 50 years time that people who have been eating genetically modified food will not have a greater risk of cancer or having deformed babies?

Mr HUGHES — We do not, so we need to conduct more experiments. It cannot be known until a later date.

Miss PATSOURA — Have there been any fatalities with genetically modified foods?

Mr SCHLOSSER — Yes, there has been the Showa Denko debacle — that is, adverse side effects caused by human fault. They did not test it properly because they did the thing so often that they thought it would be safe anyway. There have been allergic reactions and minor things like that, but I am not sure about other happenings.

Mr WOODS — If the genetically modified crops have the ability to feed more people for the greater good, surely they can also be used to create bumper drug crops?

Mr SCHLOSSER — If people want to make drugs from genetically modified crops, we cannot really stop them.

Miss BYRNE — If genetically modified crops come in and traditional farming is kicked out, what will happen to all the farmers who have dedicated their lives to farming?

Miss ARBREW — As was said earlier, if you do not want to eat genetically modified food you do not have to, so either way you do not have to grow GM crops if you do not want to.

Miss HOLDEN — If we allow the growing of genetically modified crops as against traditional crops, what can we do for people who do not want to eat genetically modified crops if GM food dominates the market?

Mr SCHLOSSER — There are still traditional crops on the market, and I think there will be for some years to come.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 25 TOPIC 10 — There is no point being an active citizen if you are under 18 because no-one listens to kids.

Presenting school — Upwey High School

Challenging school — Marian College

Miss BARNES — What is an active citizen? We believe that an active citizen is a person who has the choice and chooses to make a difference in society. They play an active role in the public and are able to influence change in problems that relate to them and the community in general.

No-one listens to the youth of today because society views us as immature adolescents with no social conscience. Adults, whether it be our parents or more highly regarded social commentators, do not take our opinions seriously because we have not yet finished our education and apparently are incapable of a wider vision. The general public believes that our generation has not had enough life experience to change matters concerning the community, as in the eyes of the law we are still children. Think about it! When was the last time that you were opposed to something that the government was involved in but did you have any say in it whatsoever? No, because without the right to vote we have no say in such major decisions.

How can we influence change when our society does not grant us the opportunity to vote, which means that our voices cannot be heard. The youth feel the impact of many government decisions such as education and health care, but because we have no vote the decision-makers can continue to neglect our needs. What the government does not realise is that we are the future and that our views are just as important, maybe even more important, than the views of older generations. Why have an opinion on something that you feel passionate about when no one acknowledges your point of view? Overall, people are not interested in us or our point of view, so how can people expect us to be active citizens if they do not attempt or want to listen to us.

How many government bodies have been formed with the input of under-18-year-olds to assist and discuss the problems facing the youth of today? For example, thousands of under-18-year-olds are roaming the streets and having no place to call home. These are our street kids. Who really listens and cares about this much-maligned group in the community? The Salvation Army and other welfare organisations, but nobody else.

For the moment we will just have to hope that the community will take a step forward in allowing and encouraging today’s youth to be involved in vital decision making that will further improve the future of Australia.

Mr MONCRIEFF — Is being here today not being an active citizen?

Mr HANLEN — Yes, in a way, it is being an active citizen, but until we are mature enough to vote not enough can be changed.

Mr BRENNAN — A group at our school — Justice and Democracy — were appalled by the government’s stand on asylum seekers and organised a dinner and raised $2300. All the money was given to asylum seekers. All the members of this group were under 18 years of age. How do you respond to this active citizenship?

Miss BARNES — Any organisation can raise money and give the money to refugees, but will that change the issue of refugees? It will not change anything. Giving money may help, but it does not change the decisions that the government makes for us.

Miss HOLDEN — Do the honourable members of Upwey High School believe that having a vote is the only way we can express our opinions?

Miss FITZSIMMONS — It may not be the only answer, but it is the only way we can have a say in government and yet we cannot vote.

Miss BYRNE — Have you ever tried to be an active citizen in your community? If so, what was the reaction of the people — surely it was not negative?

Miss BARNES — Of course we have a positive reaction. Just being here today is being involved, and you are getting a positive reaction. However, it is still not making any difference. Yes, it is good to be involved in things, but we are not making any difference in major issues. We are way too young to even have any experience or have any say in these things.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 26 Miss HOLDEN — You mentioned the problem of homeless children. How do you consider this problem can be resolved?

Mr HANLEN — The way it could be resolved is for more recognition in the media to be given to programs such as those used by the Salvation Army and greater funding of them.

Mr BRENNAN — You say being able to vote is the only way to be heard, but no-one hears you when you vote.

Mr HANLEN — That is a metaphor.

Mr WERTS — We already have our own opinions through student representative councils and junior school councils. These are bodies where our opinions matter and our opinions are given some acknowledgment. Why not go to larger things and change what is happening in either the state or the nation?

Mr HANLEN — I implore anyone to attempt to do that, but when you are under 18 years of age people who are older get first preference.

Mr GILLIVOUR — If what you say is true, that we are not heard as kids, then why are there regular forums in the newspapers which encourage input and which allow us to voice our opinions?

Miss DOUGHERTY — That is just a minority of the community, it is not everyone. If everyone listened, then we would probably get a lot more done.

Miss GARDINER — If everybody got their say what would be left to dream about? What would there be left for everyone if the world was the way they wanted it? Nothing is perfect. Some people get hurt but they still try.

Miss FITZSIMONS — If everyone got to vote, then probably even more of our dreams would come true.

Mr MICHAELIDES — Do you honestly believe teenagers have enough experience, education and mental capacity to make choices that will impact the world and our community?

Mr HANLEN — I believe that anyone who volunteers to do such a thing has the right if they have enough life experience to consider it — for instance, some children have travelled the world and others have done things like this which can greatly influence them. But if they believe they have enough life experience to vote, then they should do so.

Miss ZAFIRIOU — A lot of kids under the age of 18 are still immature and will not take things such as voting seriously, making dummy bids. Tell us what you think the appropriate age is to start voting for what goes on in this country?

Miss FITZSIMMONS — Fourteen.

Mr MAYS — If we do not think that we can be heard now, what makes you think that we can be heard later? If we do not believe we can be heard now then what makes you think we will even try to be heard in later years, after we are 18?

Miss DOUGHERTY — By the time we are 18 we are allowed to vote and people take notice of that vote. Then people will listen.

Mr MAYS — What happens if when you are older than 18 you do not think anyone will listen to you because of the fact that you were not able to make yourself heard when you were younger than 18? You might not want to vote because of the fact that you were excluded from national things like this.

Miss BARNES — If you do not want to vote, that is your choice. After you turn 18 everyone has the right to vote; everyone is more recognised in the community and is able to make decisions for themselves. If they think they cannot be heard, that is their problem.

Miss PEJOSKI — You say, for example, that no-one listens to us now. We are mature kids, obviously, because we are here. We are not kids any more, we are teenagers. But you are saying no-one will listen to us, and as Monbulk College said earlier, all of a sudden when we turn 18 they are pressuring us to vote and telling us if we

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 27 do not vote we will get a fine, isn’t that right? What do you think the government can do to allow us to have a voice in everything that goes around?

Miss BARNES — What the government could do is form more groups with the involvement of kids like us instead of taking in opinions of people their age. They have formed some groups, but they are not including the majority of the youth today.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — That concludes the time for this topic. It has been an extremely good one and I congratulate the presenting and challenging schools and the participants from the floor.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 28 TOPIC 11 — Wind farms should not be allowed in coastal areas.

Presenting school — Matthew Flinders Girls College

Challenging school — Western Port College

Miss HART — What is a wind farm? Wind farms are a source of creating clean and renewable energy that will have a profoundly positive effect on reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The farms consist of 6 to 50 wind turbines standing around 100 metres above the ground. Wind turns the turbines, in turn generating electricity.

Wind farms are an important step towards the solution to global warming and we support them, but they should not be placed in coastal areas. We define a coastal area as anywhere within 2 kilometres from the ocean.

If wind farms were constructed in our coastal areas, think of the negative impact they would have on the environment, tourism and nearby housing, not to mention the aesthetic problems they would cause. Australia’s coastal regions are some of the finest landscapes we have to offer and by placing wind farms in these areas we will be detracting from these beautiful and fragile regions. Do we really want turbines dominating our natural skyline, taking away the wonder of nature and exchanging it for the developments of the modern world?

The environmental problems associated with the proposed wind farms are not as damaging as the current means of energy extraction, but they are still displeasing. If wind farms were placed in coastal regions, they could cause erosion. Native animals would be forced out of their habitat as a significant amount of vegetation would have to be cleared to fit these in. At the moment many of our native species are classified as endangered and with proposed wind turbine development the numbers may decrease even further, especially for species such as the Abbott’s booby, the Amsterdam albatross and blue petrel, all listed as extremely endangered and whose migratory flight paths may be interrupted by the farms with improper placement.

Tourism is also a major industry in coastal regions of Australia and supports a large network of occupations, creating financial security for many communities. Tourism revenue would be affected if the view or flora and fauna are obstructed or damaged by a wind farm. The country, while admired for its vastness, produces less revenue for tourism and so is the ideal place for wind farms.

Houses in coastal areas are some of the most expensive places to purchase because of the views, environment and lifestyle. The housing market in these areas would fall dramatically because the coast would lose its unique serene attributes.

There are definitely other areas where we could put wind farms, areas where environmental degradation is not such a major factor and where the turbines can still create sufficient power. We could incorporate wind farms in and around inland agricultural farming areas where the ground affected has already been cleared and is used for another purpose. We could even place them in the desert.

For the reduction of greenhouse gases to occur we need to look at all the alternative means of energy production. Solar energy is less intrusive than the wind farms but less efficient and very expensive, and other alternatives are still at the experimental stage. If wind farms are to become a significant feature of our energy production system, then we must ensure that we choose locations that will be less affected by wind farms than our vulnerable coastal regions. If we do not protect our world from the dangers that we constantly expose it to, eventually there will no longer be anything to hold onto. If we place wind farms in areas of Australia that are away from the coast we have the power to save the environment now and in the future.

Miss GARDINER — How could wind farms be damaging our skyline? Sure, they are not natural, but it would be better to have wind farms than looking up at the sky and seeing grey smog, which wind farms are helping to reduce. Isn’t smog worse than turbines?

Miss FISHER — These are going to be placed in coastal regions where there is not a lot of pollution coming from the cities. I am sure if you ask people why they go there they will say they do not go there in anticipation of wind farms being placed there, they go there because they are beautiful and they do not want man-made features there.

Miss GARDINER — Tourists do not just come to Australia to see the view. Some tourists may see a wind farm here and there, but so what? Do you think tourists should stop coming to Australia just because of wind farms?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 29 Miss FISHER — No, we want them to come, but we think they will choose not to come if the view is affected. They go there to see natural beauty, but they might not go there any more because they could go and see a wind farm in other parts of the world, because it is not as if Australia is the one country with them. If we are encouraging people to come if they want to see it, why could they not go to the country and bring funds into the country regions?

Miss GARDINER — The housing market in coastal areas rarely falls. The honourable member said coastal areas are ‘some of the most expensive places to purchase’. Why should house prices be likely to drop because of wind farms? Is it possible that they might actually increase land value by improving the view, as happened in the Netherlands for example?

Miss HARTIGAN — It is true that houses in coastal regions are very expensive. Putting wind farms on the coast will not raise prices. No-one wants to have a view of a wind farm turbine 100 metres high outside their window. We are not saying that we do not want them at all, just not on the coast. It might not affect prices in certain areas, but in most areas having wind farms would lower the cost because people do not want to see them.

Miss GARDINER — The opposition is supposed to be against wind farms, but now they are saying wind farms would be okay if we just moved them away from the coast to places such as the desert and farmlands, but are there no views there? Now I am confused. What do you actually stand for?

Miss JONES — We support having wind farms, but not on the coast, because they wreck the environment, even though they are fantastic for pollution reduction. The pros and cons of putting them on the coast outweigh each other. While the country is admired for its vastness, there are not that many views there, and we can put them in areas that have already been cleared, and some do not have any chance of being put back to their natural state.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I open the floor to questions on this topic.

Mr WOODS — Would it not be logical to construct a wind farm on a coastal area because of the untouched winds that are coming off the bay? To build them further inland would be to jeopardise their success because of the dying winds reaching them.

Miss HARTIGAN — It is true that there is more wind on the coast, but the land on the coast is very fragile. There is wind in desert areas. Even if it is not as windy as it is on the coast, it is worth putting them inland just to protect our fragile coastline, which as yet is not as damaged as inland areas.

Mr COLLINS — You keep saying that tourists go to coastal regions because of their natural beauty, but because they are tourist areas are their horizons not already covered by hotels and theme parks?

Miss FISHER — When you look around the Victorian coastline in areas such as the Twelve Apostles do you see five-star hotels that have popped up everywhere? Smaller buildings than those get a lot of the tourism, and they are usually in towns that are situated further away from the coastal areas; so it is not everywhere. I am sure if you drove along the coast you would not see many buildings damaging the natural beauty of the coastline.

Mr WERTS — Where else could we build wind farms? It is true we could put loads of wind farms in Central Australia, but there are no consistent winds there. We could get rid of wind farms altogether, but then we would have to go back to the old way of making electricity by burning coal, but then we would be destroying our ecosystems.

Miss FISHER — Burning coal is not the only way to go. If we were talking about the different ways of doing it, we could all just stick solar panels on our roofs and then we would not have to pay electricity bills. It is worth not damaging the tourism industry and the beautiful coastal areas, because we want to preserve them for future generations. Land in the country has been cleared a long time ago, and I think the benefits of preserving these areas will outweigh the cons.

Miss O’BEIRNE — Wind farms are tourist attractions, and the coastal areas are major tourist attractions. Would combining them not bring more tourists?

Miss HARTIGAN — There is no evidence that says that wind farms are tourist attractions, but we do know the coast is a tourist attraction. It is not just about tourism, our main point is the need to protect the coastline, and putting wind farms there will not do that.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 30 Mr GILLIVOUR — If we move wind farms from the coast, where do you suggest they should be placed in order to provide as much efficiency and power as they do in the coastal areas?

Miss HART — If you put wind farms on the coastline, even though they might get lots of wind, they actually shut down after they get a certain wind speed. If you place them inland they will still get the wind and there will not be the problem of their shutting down, so it will outweigh it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — That will have to be the last question on that topic, which is a very controversial one. There was a very high standard of questioning and presenting.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 31 TOPIC 12 — Mandatory detention of those who seek refuge and asylum in Australia should be abolished.

Presenting school — Warrandyte High School

Challenging school — Diamond Valley Secondary College

Mr BELGIOVANE — What did you do last Saturday? I played basketball and tennis and then went to the movies to see Terminator 3 with some friends. Afterwards I could choose whatever I wanted for dinner. This is the life refugees and asylum seekers are looking for. What we take for granted are these people’s wildest dreams.

Mandatory detention is inhumane. Why should we treat refugees and asylum seekers like our worst criminals? Mandatory detention is the detaining of asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia or on our shores. That our system detains potentially illegal immigrants for up to two years is wrong. Why should we be punishing people who have been persecuted in their home countries? It is unjust and contravenes our obligation to assist refugees under international law.

Australia is one of the few countries that has a policy of mandatory detention. The Australian government detains all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without proper documentation. Australia seems to have adopted a policy of deterring the asylum seekers and making life as difficult and unpleasant as possible to remain in our country.

What is wrong with Australia’s mandatory detention system? Australia currently has about 1200 asylum seekers in mandatory detention, and many of these are held for excessive periods of time. According to Amnesty International medical treatment is not always satisfactory, education facilities are limited and the range of recreation activities for teenagers and child detainees is inadequate. The detention of young people like us is of serious concern. Fifty-four per cent of these young people have been detained for longer than three months and 16 per cent of these for longer than a year. This compares to Sweden’s maximum of just three days. Kids like us are being damaged emotionally as well as mentally and physically. It is destroying their lives. A young boy’s opinion of life in detention was, ‘All I can see is the wire and us behind it’. When a girl was asked to draw a picture she drew a weeping bird in a cage and said, ‘This is not how I feel; it is how I am’.

Asylum seekers are traumatised by the experiences they have lived through prior to their arrival in Australia. These experiences include torture, rape, witnessing the death of family members and the appalling conditions during their passage to Australia. Being placed in detention centres where conditions are similar to prison magnifies these traumatic experiences. We hear every day what a great country we live in, but simply we should be ashamed.

Mr CLEVELAND — In your speech you have not stated what the alternatives are to mandatory detaining.

Mr BELGIOVANE — There are many alternatives to mandatory detention. Seeing we are only one of the few countries in the world that has it, surely there are many. In many countries they have parole, which is similar to what we have for our prisoners. It is far more successful and is far more humane.

Mr WATKINS — If the asylum seekers have witnessed death, been raped and tortured as you state, then why are they complaining about being given a roof over their head, food to eat and clothes to wear? Surely anything would have been better than their previous homes.

Miss ZAFIRIOU — Yes, they have been given a roof over their heads and food, but it is not proper. They have been beaten. Sometimes they get cold food and improper meals. A lot of the refugees are getting really sick, and that is not the way it should be.

Miss ROBERTSON — The medical attention given to asylum seekers is on par with the Australian public. Asylum seekers receive a physical every two months and treatment of illness within a maximum 24 hours after first symptoms. If this standard is good enough for the Australian public, should it be good enough for these people?

Mr BELGIOVANE — Unfortunately this is untrue. The government would have us believe this, but it is obviously not correct. We have people who are being beaten and so on by the staff members, yet you are telling me that they are being helped. Why does it matter then? It is already too late.

Mr CINERARI — So you are complaining about them being treated like prisoners, yet you want to put them on parole like criminals?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 32 Mr BELGIOVANE — We do not wish to put them on parole, but, as I am sure you think, there are security reasons and stuff for this; surely parole would be better than locked in prison.

Mr WATKINS — The people smugglers charge up to A$8000 to be taken. How can these people be asylum seekers when they can afford to pay this much to get here?

Miss ZAFIRIOU — It is alleged that people who have the resources to pay people smugglers cannot possibly be genuine refugees.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — That will have to be the last question from the challenging school, but I congratulate both Warrandyte High School and Diamond Valley Secondary College on that presentation. I will open up the floor now for questions from other schools.

Mr GILLIVOUR — Most of today’s refugees at detention centres came here under illegal circumstances. They broke the law. What criminals! Why should they be treated better than criminals when that is what they are?

Mr BELGIOVANE — Unfortunately many of these people had to break the law. As we saw in Iraq before the Americans took over, horrible things had been done to people. In Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq there are no Australian consulates. If they want to come to Australia they have to break the law. They have to be illegal immigrants. There is no other way.

Miss ZAFIRIOU — Also, under Australian and international law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution.

Mr WERTS — In your speech are you saying that Australia should accept refugees or we should banish them from our country?

Mr BELGIOVANE — I believe we should accept them, but when we accept them we should not be simply throwing them in prison to deal with them.

Mr MICHAELIDES — Do you propose the refugees and unauthorised arrivals roam our streets when we know nothing about them and their history?

Mr BELGIOVANE- This is exactly why we propose parole for these people. It means that we can still keep track of them while we work who they are and what they have done.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — I will allow a second question on this occasion, Mr Michaelides.

Mr MICHAELIDES — You say they are not criminals, so why put them on parole? Why treat them like that if they are not criminals as you say?

Mr BELGIOVANE — A lot better than locking them in prison, is it not?

Miss HOLDEN — Without seeing this at first hand, does the team from Warrandyte High School have any proof that the refugees are being unfairly treated by the staff of the mandatory detention centres?

Mr COLLINS — Do you have any proof that they are not being treated like that? People have said it, people have written it down on things that they are being hurt and drawn pictures. When they have gotten out they have sent them to people and stuff. You are just taking the government’s word for it, so you have as much proof as we do.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Thank you for that answer. Generally speaking standing orders do not allow a question to be answered with another question. However, any question is accepted as an answer to the question, even if the questioner is not particularly happy with the answer.

Miss DOUGHERTY — Let us say that we allow detention to be abolished, then in three years we could be harbouring more than 75 per cent of such terrorist groups as Jemaah Islamiah and al-Qaeda. How is this a good thing?

Mr COLLINS — Actually out of 13 000 people who came to Australia, only 7 were sent back due to character grounds, and only 1 of them was said to have terrorist links.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 33 Miss GARDINER — If people are being treated so badly and they have drawn pictures and written about it, why would the staff let them send it out? It would just be proof that they are mistreating them. Why would they let them?

Mr COLLINS — They give these pictures out after they come out.

Mr WOODS — Is it not possible that the mental affliction caused by their own countries is actually the reason why they do blame the staff at the detention centres for hurting them?

Mr BELGIOVANE — This may be true, but as I mentioned in my speech, prison life treatment just magnifies the traumatic experiences.

Miss FITZSIMMONS — If you are stating that so many other countries have found ways to keep a check on immigrants, what are they and do they work, other than parole?

Mr COLLINS — Other than parole they can use community service. They can put them on probation or they can use home detention, which is a much cheaper option.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately that concludes that session, and very unfortunately for me, that concludes my time in the Chair with you. I would like to thank and congratulate each and every one of you on your contributions here today. I have heard very high quality presentations on a range of very controversial issues. I have also heard some very close and detailed questioning on those issues, requiring the people answering them to think very hard and fast on their feet. I have been extremely impressed with what I have seen and heard here today. You all deserve to be congratulated.

While I understand it is a perspective, the perspective that was argued earlier by Upwey High School — a very good school, I might say — that young people do not have a say in what happens in their country, in their state and in their local community, I disagree with it. I believe the people listening to the articulate arguments you make and the cases you put can do nothing less than take notice of your views, attitudes and opinions. If they choose to ignore them, I believe they do so at their peril, because as has been mentioned here today, you are the future and you will be taking on leadership roles in our community and our society within a very short period of time. I certainly look forward to that, because what I have seen here today shows me that you are preparing well for that role.

Congratulations. Well done. It has been an absolute pleasure to be with you here today. I obviously hope that the rest of your Students Parliament experience is as good as what I have seen here this afternoon. I now vacate the chair for the next Acting President, Miss Mikakos.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 34 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Jenny Mikakos) — Good afternoon; I am Jenny Mikakos, a member for Jika Jika Province. I will ask Miss Zafiriou to give everyone a wave. That is where I normally sit in the chamber. I was a Temporary Chair in the last Parliament, which means that I used to assist in presiding from time to time. As I am now Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, I do not do that any more.

I am very pleased to be here, particularly as a number of my local schools are participating today in this Students Parliament. I would like to acknowledge those local schools: Mill Park Secondary College; Lakeside Secondary College; East Preston Islamic College; St John’s College; and, lastly, Thornbury Darebin College, which is my old school.

Welcome to all of you who are participating in today’s Students Parliament, something I am sure you are finding to be a very enjoyable experience. We are running a little bit over time, so we will go straight into the next topic.

TOPIC 13 — Public transport should be free of charge for students, to courage them to use it later in life and to avoid problems caused by fare evasion.

Presenting school — St John’s College, Preston

Challenging school — Monbulk College

Miss MASOURAS — Honourable President and members of the Legislative Council, my fellow team members, Freida Pandazis, Leo Tsolakis, Panagiotis Papakonstantinou, and I are here today to speak to you about the issue of free-of-charge public transport for students. We believe that students and children under 18 should be able to use public transport free of charge.

Firstly, we hold this opinion because in many cases of fare evasion which involve children they are automatically fined. Ticket inspectors do not listen to children, even though they might have valid reasons for not holding a ticket, and often misuse their authority, with serious consequences for the students. There are many documented cases. One child sat down because the queue was too long. When he got up to buy a ticket later on, the child was told it was too late and was duly fined. Cases like these are unacceptable. Just because someone is not 18 does not mean that they can be treated in such an unfair manner. These cases are not isolated incidents, and one of them has recently resulted in serious injuries. It is imperative that public transport is free for students.

Secondly, young people do not have the maturity that adults have. They do not always think of the consequences before they take risks, such as fare evasion. A major reason why this is so is that there is a lot of peer pressure on them and they do not want to appear ‘uncool’ in front of their friends by doing the right thing. As a result they will engage in things such as fare evasion at one point or another of their teenage life. It would be wiser if public transport were free so such behaviour was not promoted.

Thirdly, students are not the only ones causing the problem of fare evasion. They are not entirely at fault for the existence of this problem. In comparison to the old system of transport, nowadays we have a system that is in a complete mess, and not because students do not pay their fares. When the government privatised transport tram conductors were eliminated, staff levels changed and an automated ticketing system was introduced. Ever since there have been constant problems with this new system, and fare evasion is committed by many adults, not just students. Their financial effect on the system is far greater than that of students, and this needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, fares for travelling on public transport should not apply to students, for it is a great financial burden for many parents, especially those with many young members in the family.

Finally, there should not be fares for students so that parents do not have to take their children to school in the morning and in the afternoon. This will encourage students to take public transport more. As a result traffic congestion will ease in the morning and afternoon and the environment will be protected from ever-increasing pollution as there will not be that many cars on the road.

In conclusion, we strongly support that public transport should be free of charge for students. This will prevent unfair ticket fining taking place and decrease fare evasion and the financial burden on families while promoting greater use of public transport; that in turn will protect the environment.

Mr WERTS — How is the driver-conductor able to judge who is a student? Some people might wear a school uniform to get free travel and some schools have no uniform, so how is the conductor supposedly able to judge between a school with no uniform as opposed to people in everyday life?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 35 Mr TSOLAKIS — There are student ID cards that are available for students who wish to purchase them, and they would be able to show them as proof of age.

Mr WERTS — Who will cover the cost of the identification cards and the inspectors to check them?

Mr TSOLAKIS — They will only cost a few dollars, and I think they are already on the market.

Miss KEENE — If public transport is free for students, who determines how old a student is? In your speech you said 18. Some high school students are older than this. What about university students?

Mr TSOLAKIS — On the cards there will have to be evidence that you are a student and that you are over age as well.

Mr MIDDLETON — Bus and train companies make a lot of money from transporting students. Who will cover the costs of this free transport?

Mr TSOLAKIS — There might be some money, but when kids are jumping off trains because it wasn’t their fault and they have been made to pay fines, is it worth it for the government to make a little bit more money? Kids can get seriously injured. Think about that.

Miss HARTIGAN — If students on public transport do not have to pay and if there are kids hanging around and they are bored, they might decide just to get on it for the sake of it and could misbehave because they do not care if they get kicked off because they have not paid.

Mr PAPAKONSTANTINOU — If they do misbehave, they will be fined. They are going to be made to pay for the ticket.

Miss SHIHATA — Some parents go to TAFE or attend courses. Are they not students? Do they get free transport as well?

Mr TSOLAKIS — They can work more hours than students who go to high school and primary school, so they will have a higher income.

Mr MANOLIOS — Just like one of the speakers from Monbulk College said, who will pay for all the lost income from all of the students if the students stop paying? And like St John’s said, the public transport system is already run down a lot now, if they lose their added income the public transport system will be even worse. How do you expect them to recover from all of that lost income?

Mr TSOLAKIS — Are you telling me that for the government to make a few million dollars it is worth the life of children, because that is what you are proposing in a way.

Miss ZAFIRIOU — Transport such as buses, trains and trams make most of its money from school kids travelling to school. Most people, such as some of my friends, have to catch three buses and one tram to get back home. If transport was to be free for children, then there would be no transport because most of the transportation would not be making as much money as it should, so what would happen if it was to be free?

Mr PAPAKONSTANTINOU — Could you please repeat the question?

Miss ZAFIRIOU — Transport makes a lot of its money from children, but if it was to be free, what would happen to the transport because it would not be making any money?

Mr PAPAKONSTANTINOU — There are no statistics that prove that children use public transport. During the day many adults use it as well. The companies can make money by increasing the fines for adults who do not pay for their tickets.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — We have to move on to the next topic now because we are out of time. Thank you for that debate. It was very good. I am sure the transport minister will be very interested in that one.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 36 TOPIC 14 — Residents who complain about the noise levels from live music venues should just move elsewhere.

Presenting school — Thornbury Darebin College

Challenging school — Melbourne Girls College

Mr MATHEWS — Imagine a world where there is no opportunity to hear music performed, where the Australian music industry has no places to perform, to build an audience, to improve their stagecraft and to build confidence in themselves as musicians and performers. Think of AC/DC and Cold Chisel. If pubs had not been available back then, they would never have existed because that is where all bands have their humble beginnings. Who is to say the next AC/DC or Cold Chisel is not waiting out there to get a chance at the big time?

Not only does live music have a great cultural significance in Melbourne, it attracts tourists. The Victorian government’s tourism web site boasts of ‘Australia’s largest concentration of live music venues, where local and international bands cover everything from grunge rock and techno to jazz, blues and the avant-garde’. We would argue that you cannot trumpet the strength of live music on your tourism web site and then not support live music where it is threatened in the inner suburbs.

If live music in Melbourne were shut down it would affect the estimated 4000 bands in Melbourne and a whole ecosystem of sound and light technicians and other music industry types who support their existence. If residents’ complaints affect live music venues, then training courses like our school’s VET course, Music Industry, which provides skill training for young people interested in careers in music, would not run.

Sydney and Brisbane have not withstood the pressure from residents to close live venues. Melbourne musicians have decided to fight this trend, and they have formed two active pressure groups — Vicmusic and Fair Go 4 Live Music. These groups promote the growth and development of Victoria’s original contemporary music and fight the closure of venues. These groups are not anti-resident as such. After all, the audiences include local residents too. They are simply asserting their right to perform for the significant crowds they attract to the inner suburbs. Music is usually played on Friday and Saturday nights when people are out and about. If Melbourne’s music dies out, we will lose tourism and there will be a very unhappy music group, including locals who enjoy the opportunity to hear and support local talent. Music is what makes Melbourne the way it is.

Most people who move from the suburbs to the inner city are seeking a more sophisticated lifestyle, but then they realise that the music at the local pub goes long into the night and their enjoyment of their expensive new property is affected.

At the moment the existing law requires police to attend venues when called out by residents to curtail entertainment. Though the pubs were there first and have a permit to play live music, publicans are afraid of the complaints of residents and may look to pokies as an alternative entertainment. For music students like us this is not fair, because many of us might not have the chance to perform live and be discovered.

Some suggested means of resolving the conflict include sound monitoring, soundproofing, an enhanced consultation process and formally warning new property buyers that they are moving in next to a cultural amenity in the form of a live venue.

In conclusion, we call on the government to allow Melbourne to continue nurturing new talent and to provide support of real substance to the music industry. It is our great cultural asset. If no attempt is made to reach a compromise, tourism will decline and many jobs will be lost. Music is a part of Melbourne. To take that way from us is just short-sighted. So from rock to jazz and punk to pop, please do not take away our live music — it is what makes Melbourne great!

Miss O’BEIRNE — As a part of your argument you say that bands are discovered in bars and pubs. Could you please provide evidence to support this narrow claim?

Mr WEST — We are saying that most or some bands in Australia have their humble beginnings in bars, but there are some exceptions.

Miss O’NEILL — You mentioned that people who move into the inner cities are seeking a more sophisticated lifestyle. Could you please explain the relevance of this point to your case?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 37 Mr WEST — We are saying this because the majority of people are moving here, but they are complaining and they are short-sighted about the real subject.

Miss LAZETIC — Loud music is a health hazard, this means that it is damaging not only to performers, patrons and employees but also to residents, therefore it should not be tolerated. Please comment.

Mr WEST — Most of the pubs were actually there first, and it is not residents’ right to complain. Plus, pubs are doing whatever they can to soundproof and do anything to stop residents from complaining.

Miss MARTMAN — Your argument stated that musical talent will be promoted at live music venues, yet the issue you were asked to respond to was the noise level at these venues. Please explain.

Mr WEST — Can you please repeat the question?

Miss MARTMAN — Your argument stated that musical talent will be promoted at live music venues, yet the issue you were asked to respond to was the noise level at these venues. Please explain.

Mr WEST — The pubs are a thoroughfare for live bands, and because of that music the residents are complaining.

Miss O’BEIRNE — A live music venue such as a pub should not just target young people but all members of the community. Can you explain why you think pubs should be exclusive to young people?

Miss SAMARDZIJA — I do not think we actually said that live music venues such as pubs were just for young people; they are for everyone. Live music is enjoyed by the whole community, and it should stay like that.

Miss BOYSEN — Have you ever had a neighbour who was having a party with loud music and you could not go to sleep? This is what it is like for people who live near music venues. How would you feel if they told you that if you did not like it you should move elsewhere?

Mr MATHEWS — Pubs have permits to play live music and into the night.

Mr SCHLOSSER — Do you not think that it is a bit unreasonable to expect someone to pay about $500 000 and have all the hassle of moving and losing friends and then be told they should just move?

Mr WEST — Most pubs were there first, and residents should have researched their area before they moved into a refurbished warehouse apartment.

Mr WOODS — In an already busy city and throughout inner suburbs where are these people supposed to go? If live music is allowed at any hour we are putting the needs of 60 in a pub over hundreds in surrounding apartments. Are we supposed to believe that these people must move because of a stereotype that says that people who move into the city are searching for live music?

Mr WEST — Why could the people not move into the local suburbs and take a 10-minute train ride into the city and avoid having the noise of the pubs distracting them throughout the night?

Miss GARDINER — Even though pubs and other places play loud music, why should they have to play it during all the night? Certainly they must think that people have to sleep. They should not play the music until 3 and 4 o’clock in the morning.

Miss ANGELOPOULOS — They play mainly on Friday and Saturday nights. That is normally the time when people go out.

Miss KEENE — What about residents who have lived in the area since before the live music started? Why should they move?

Miss SAMARDZIJA — For most cases the pubs were there first and residents came later, but in that case the residents have a right to complain.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Thank you again. That was another very interesting debate. This is a topical issue, because there is a bit of a debate in the inner suburbs of Melbourne at the moment where there are a lot of residential developments going on, and pubs and other live music venues are facing a lot of complaints from new residents as they come in.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 38 TOPIC 15 — Anyone who takes on a public role surrenders all rights to privacy.

Presenting school — Lakeside Secondary College

Challenging school — East Preston Islamic College

Miss MARKS — Of course, privacy is very important. Our hearts went out to Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones who were traumatised by the photographers who horribly invaded the privacy of their wedding. But strangely enough, the official photos, which they sold to a magazine for a huge amount of money, did not traumatise them at all.

Shortly after her death, Lady Di said she was, ‘Exasperated at the attention devoted to her family by journalists’. After years of lapping up the publicity she decided she did not want any publicity at all. While wearing a leopard-print swimsuit she batted her eyes at the press, gave them her little-girl look and asked them to go away. Talk about hypocrisy! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! When people take up a public role they know they have entered into a contract to open their lives to the public.

The public has a legitimate right to look at the private lives of public people because we are affected by what is hidden. If a politician has tobacco company shares, we might not trust him or her to make good decisions about no-smoking areas.

Publicity makes public people richer and more powerful. They live their lives in the public spotlight. The boundaries are blurred between the public and private parts of their lives. You can see this when politicians use pictures of their spouses and children in their election material to tell voters they are a happy family.

The Australian constitution has a right to privacy enshrined in it. It is the law that protects all Australians from legal spying or stalking. Nowhere are public people given extra privacy rights that allow them just to say that trespassers will be prosecuted and persecuted.

Everyone knows about this unwritten contract. When the American general and now American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, decided not to run for President his reason was that he did not want his personal life and that of his family to become public property. Public people earn huge salaries to compensate them for the privacy they trade away. People who make these contracts cannot be seen as victims.

When John Howard says he supports family values and is against drugs, he is a role model. When John Howard’s son is caught drink-driving the public has a legitimate right to see how this role model handles the situation. In a case like that the public person has taken his family into the public spotlight.

Public scrutiny against public people keep people honest and accountable. With a code of silence they could get away with murder and the moral behaviour of role models such as Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett and Shane Warne would have stayed hidden. Openness is the oxygen of democracy. As Kenneth Branagh once said, ‘If you’re a public person and don’t like that stuff, then you should not be in the business’.

Miss ABUBAKAR — What possible difference would it have made to the Australian public if they had not found out about Wayne Carey and Shane Warne’s unfortunate behaviour?

Miss YOUNAN — You are saying that public people have a right to privacy and the public should respect that by turning a blind eye to their faults and mistakes. If you believe that, you are wrong. Shane Warne was a role model for millions of kids around the world, but when this icon, this role model was guilty of misconduct, the public has a right to know. ‘Shameful Shane’ was unfaithful to his wife. He sends full-on text messages to fans; he tongue-kissed a 16-year-old girl — he is disgusting. If we do not look into the lives of our icons we will be deaf and blind to the real truth. Who would want that?

Miss HASSAN — Why is their behaviour a concern to the public?

Mr GORE — You are saying that their behaviour is off limits and that anything that happens, no matter how much of a concern it may be to the public, cannot be reported. The media has a right to report on anything that occurs in a public place. When Jennifer Aniston went for a walk with Brad Pitt on a public beach and when ‘Shameful Shane’ kisses 16 -year-old girls, it is deception. They both claim it is a private matter — what hypocrites. Public people ask for attention. They take themselves into the public arena and they are targets and media manipulators.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 39 Miss TALEB — Where do you draw the line when it starts interfering and affecting a person’s private life?

Miss COVALEA — So you are saying without privacy it cannot be normal. We all have different needs. For many people being denied privacy leads to mental illness and for others not having a lot of attention leads to feelings of unworthiness. Public people are people who have decided they do not want or need high levels of privacy. They are natural show-offs. Public people often suffer feelings of rejection if the media takes no interest in them. There is a point where a desire for privacy becomes a desire for secrecy, a desire to hide matters that the public has a right to know.

Mr HUGHES — The representative of Marian College stated that everyone is equal. Do you not think that the person who takes on a public role has the same rights as everyone else? What if you had to take a public role, how would you feel?

Miss MARKS — There is no absolute right to privacy — for no-one, not even us.

Miss MASOURAS — Why should we have to know what famous people do in their private lives?

Miss MARKS — The reason we need to know what public people are doing is because we are affected by what they do. For example, a judge gave a ruling on a paedophile case when he himself was a paedophile. We need to know if these people are living in our society.

Mr WERTS — Some person may be caught for drink-driving and you say in your contribution that John Howard’s son was caught drink driving. What is the difference between that person and John Howard’s son? John Howard’s son has done nothing to attract public attention apart from the fact that he is the son of the Prime Minister.

Miss COVALEA — So you are saying it is okay to take an interest in public people, but when it comes to their spouses, children and their friends there should be complete privacy. There is no absolute thing as privacy, not even for children. Many public people take their children into the public arena. During the mad cow disease epidemic a British government minister wanted to prove how safe the meat was and he had his young daughter eat a piece of meat on the television news. Such public people have made their children public accessories.

Miss ABUBAKAR — Do we really have a legitimate right to look into the private lives of public people, or have we just grown accustomed to entertaining ourselves at their expense?

Mr GORE — So you are saying that the public and media are only interested in the salacious details of our public people’s lives. The public has a legitimate right to find out because they are affected by the answer. If we know that a local councillor is visiting brothels, we might not want them in a position to decide on how many brothels should be put in our area. In other words, the private details of public people affect the way we live our lives.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Regretfully we are out of time because I was enjoying the debate. We have a few budding journalists from Lakeside — ‘Shameful Shane’; I like that.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 40 TOPIC 16 — The use of camera phones for illegal and immoral purposes means that they should be banned.

Presenting school — Mill Park Secondary College

Challenging school — Croydon Secondary College

Miss PEJOSKI — New telephone technology has led to the introduction of camera phones, which has resulted in new ways of law-breaking and immoral behaviour. Since the introduction of camera phones concerns have been raised about privacy, digital shoplifting, and other criminal and immoral activity.

Some people will say, ‘Camera phones: they are only cameras, why don’t we ban them as well while we are at it?’. While in some cases they have the same capabilities and features, camera phones are much more dangerous. The majority of them are smaller, weigh less, and they have more useful functions in the eye of a pervert, spy, et cetera. Also, camera phones have the capability to send pictures to anyone anywhere, and can then be published on the Internet within seconds. In a recent case a man was found guilty of filming up girls’ skirts on Melbourne’s public transport system. Imagine if he had access to a camera phone. The images could have been broadcast over the Internet within seconds, heightening the victims trauma. That is something cameras similarly cannot do. Therefore, they are easy to use, and access should be banned.

Some places have tried to ban this new technology. The government is doing everything in its power to try to stop the use of camera phones by scrambling radio signals. However, this is illegal in places like Britain. Camera phones have been banned from some public facilities — for example, all YMCAs. Yet immoral behaviour continues and the privacy of individuals is still being violated.

In Australia everyone has the same rights. All should respect these rights and new technology should not be an exception. There have been incidents in the past where the privacy of others has been violated and people have been unwillingly exposed on the Internet. The new camera phones have already caused as much damage. These phones have been taken into change rooms, pools, toilets, and some owners of these phones have taken unauthorised photos of people in their private state. How many people like being photographed in the nude or in the toilet?

The new camera phones are being abused at the expense of innocent people. This is where the danger issue comes in. Digital shoplifting is occurring where people are taking pictures of pages in magazines instead of buying them. Some people are secretly taking photos up women’s skirts and down into bathroom stalls. Paedophiles are taking pictures of young children at the pool, in change rooms and toilets, and then putting those photos on the Internet. A past incident had photographs of young boys placed on a gay porn site — and they were not gay — with no permission whatsoever.

These new camera phones are proving to be a very big problem. The problem with this new piece of technology is that society has yet to come up with a common understanding about appropriate behaviour. There are no restrictions on who is buying them or using them. Mobile phones with little digital cameras have spread throughout the world. In the short time that camera phones have existed we have seen a multitude of inventive ways of using them illegally and immorally. Therefore we should ban them before they get completely out of control.

At the moment these camera phones are quite expensive. Why not get rid of them now while they are still relatively hard to access? Camera phones have been accepted in society without any questions, and we have already seen the consequences. We should ban this new technology before it becomes too powerful to stop.

Miss PICONE — You state in your speech that camera phones have been banned from some public facilities, yet immoral behaviour continues. Explain how banning this technology will stop the accused perverts filming when it has been proven time and time again that banning some things does not stop people purchasing the product?

Miss PEJOSKI — Banning camera phones will not stop paedophiles fully, but it will minimise it. You may ask, ‘How will they know if someone walks into a YMCA with a camera phone?’. I believe if you get caught you are fined. So it will not stop it fully, that is what we are trying to do, but it will minimise it.

Miss LOCKWOOD — Are you assuming that all people who purchase camera phones will use them for improper and unlawful activities? Have you considered that they could be used for conventional purposes?

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 41 Miss PEJOSKI — As I stated in my speech, I said ‘some’ people, not ‘everyone’ because I know many people with camera phones, and they do not use them for immoral or illegal purposes. I just said ‘some’ people, not ‘everyone’.

Miss QUILTY — World communities are constantly developing new technology. What is the point of this if it is banned every time society does not agree with it? Everyday items will soon become banned.

Mr PATSOURA — We do not know how damaging new technologies coming in in the future will be. Camera phones are quite damaging at the moment and potentially will get even more damaging.

Miss PEJOSKI — Also there are small camera pens. You will not see them. Just imagine this pen I am holding is a camera — how would you know if I am photographing you right now? That is all we are trying to stop.

Miss QUILTY — How will banning camera phones put a stop to them being obtained? Despite them being banned, people will buy them illegally and this would suggest the perverts would be using camera phones for inappropriate behaviour — for example, pornography. There will be no legitimate persons to buy them.

Mr PATSOURA — It will minimise the purchase of camera phones. It will not stop it completely but it will minimise it, and that is the one thing we are trying to get across.

Miss LOCKWOOD — If you are suggesting that these camera phones should be banned, the implications for surveillance and closed circuit cameras will be huge. We would be facing a massive crime wave without these types of technologies. Do you think it would be worth it?

Miss PEJOSKI — Can you elaborate on that? We do not understand what you mean.

Miss LOCKWOOD — Camera phones use the same technology as the cameras that watch people using ATMs, et cetera, so people could easily rob a bank without being seen if we get rid of this technology. Do you think it is worth it?

Miss PEJOSKI — We are talking about camera phones, not cameras. Safety cameras are for safety. Camera phones are for fun purposes, I guess.

Miss KAUR — To add to that, camera phones can be taken around with you. Cameras that do surveillance around us cannot be taken off and taken on to trains, and you cannot go up people’s skirts with them.

Miss GARDINER — You cannot really ban a camera phone because everyone will keep doing it. There are still cameras up in the roof, there are cameras everywhere. You cannot just ban something because it has a camera in it. What if someone wanted to see their dying husband’s smile for the last time so they took a photo quickly on a camera phone to show it. Not everyone will use it as you said, although some people might. There are other ways to do it and not just with camera phones. There are normal cameras. There are so many other ways that people can be using them properly. So just to ban something like that is wrong.

Mr GILLIVOUR — What you say is true, that it can be important to see a dying person’s smile for the last time, but the negatives far outweigh the positives. They are being abused, and technology that is being abused should be banned.

Mr WEST — By banning camera phones you are asking people to take a step back in technology. What can you say to that?

Mr PATSOURA — It is not a step back in technology, it is a delay in a certain type of technology. I am sure that various companies like NEC and Nokia can still advance their technologies in other areas.

Miss PEJOSKI — Would you rather have your privacy or new technology?

Miss O’BEIRNE — Just because some people are mistreating the use of these mobile phones with cameras in them, what is the point of taking away other people’s fun when it could increase the illegal use of them?

Miss PEJOSKI — We do not want to ban the phones for everyone; we want to ban the immoral and illegal use of them. We do not want to ban people from taking photos of their friends — that is just pure fun. We want to stop the taking of unauthorised pictures of people who have not been asked.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 42 Miss BURKE — Spy cameras have been around for many years; in fact you can buy them from your local electronics store. These spy cameras are so minute they can fit inside the eye of a child’s toy. If these spy cameras are being used for unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour, why have they not been banned before? Why are we only focusing on new technology when old technology is just as capable of producing illegal footage?

Mr GILLIVOUR — When you turn on your camera phone it is connected to the Internet. That means you can automatically email a picture within seconds. Pictures taken by spy cameras have to be developed by companies before they are distributed and in the public eye. Pictures taken by camera phones do not need that.

Mr BRENNAN — How do you propose banning these uses of camera phones?

Miss KAUR — We plan to pass laws to make them illegal. That is the only way we can stop them being sold to different people. Right now they are not widely used and are still under control.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Unfortunately we are out of time again. It has been an excellent debate. All four topics are very interesting. As someone who is in the public eye, I was fascinated by the privacy one.

I am hoping that all of you have had a fun day and, just as importantly, you have learnt a lot about the Victorian Parliament. I invite all of you back to this chamber again with your elected representatives when Parliament is sitting. This building is your building; it is owned by the Victorian people, and it is here for the Victorian people.

It is important that all of you come back to see what it is like when the Parliament is sitting so you can understand the political process better and take an interest throughout your lives in what goes on in the political process. As you have seen from the topics you have debated today, politics affects every single aspect of our lives, so it is very important that we all take an interest.

Ms DOWLING (Education Officer) — I thank all the members of Students Parliament for the hard work and thorough preparation they have put in. I also thank their teachers and parents who have helped them prepare for today’s activity. I congratulate you on your enthusiastic responses during the questioning sessions today. It was lovely to see people bobbing up all over the chamber wanting to have their say. Well done everybody.

I hope you will now take a greater interest in what goes on in state Parliament whenever you see a telecast of proceedings here. When you see it on the television or in the newspapers you will be able to recognise the building and say, ‘I have been there. I have sat in those chambers’ and maybe take a greater interest in the activities of your state Parliament. I would also encourage you to contact your members of Parliament and let them know your feelings about particular issues, because that is the only way they can do their job properly — by knowing the issues that concern their constituents.

I would particularly like to thank the staff at Parliament House for enabling activities like Students Parliament to go ahead. I thank our attendants, our acting clerks, our Hansard reporters and, of course, our members of Parliament who have acted as presidents and speakers in the chambers. I would like to thank them very much for giving so willingly of their time to make sure that an activity like this can go ahead. Our members of Parliament in particular have many demands placed on their time, and they have come forward willingly to participate in these activities. Congratulations.

The ACTING PRESIDENT — Congratulations to everyone who has been involved. You have all made a tremendous effort. Your schools and parents would be very proud of the contributions that you have made today.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 43 CLOSING OF STUDENTS PARLIAMENT

Miss BOYSEN — I move:

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

Motion unanimously agreed to.

Ms O’NEILL — I move:

That this house expresses its thanks to the President and the parliamentary Education Office for arranging today’s Students Parliament.

Motion unanimously agreed to.

Miss SHIHATA — I move:

That the Students Parliament do now adjourn.

Motion unanimously agreed to.

House adjourned 2.47 p.m.

3 September 2003 Students Parliament 44