VICTORIAN SCHOOLS

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Legislative Assembly Chamber

Parliament House

Melbourne

14 October 2002

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 1 SESSION 1 Welcome and introduction The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Andrews) — Good morning, delegates. My name is John Andrews. I am not the chairman for the day; the chairman has been caught on the Western Ring Road and will be here soon, as will one of our guest speakers, who is also travelling here. Before I invite people in, I will point out a couple of things. In this room, which is the lower house of the Parliament of Victoria, the public sessions of the convention will be held. The order this morning is that after the guests arrive, the minister will open the convention. We will then have the political campaign. During that time there will be plenty of opportunity for students to ask questions. To make sure as many students as possible have an opportunity to ask a question, we ask that you keep your question short and direct your question to one member of Parliament only, who will then be given one minute in which to reply. In the past we have found that people have given very long answers and that therefore not many people got to ask questions. So we have brought in this very strict time rule in the hope that a lot more of you will have the opportunity to ask questions. Four of our five speakers are now arriving. They are entering the chamber in the order of Mr Craig Ingram, the Honourable Bill Baxter, Dr Robert Dean, and Dr Brian Costar, Associate Professor, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University. Could you all now please stand as the Minister for Education Services and Minister for Youth Affairs enters the chamber. Please be seated. I welcome the minister, the Honourable Monica Gould, and our guest speakers to today’s convention, especially our delegates. I know it will be a great day, when we will be discussing a very topical issue: should Victoria’s upper house be reformed or abolished? Of course there is also a third alternative: that it stays exactly as it is now. I now call on the Minister for Education Services and Minister for Youth Affairs to open the convention. Ms GOULD — I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues: the Honourable Bill Baxter, Dr Robert Dean, Mr Craig Ingram; distinguished guests, students, and the teachers who are here today who have assisted and participated in your coming to the conclusion of all the work you have put into today’s conference. I will begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land we are meeting on here today — the Wurundjeri people. In keeping with the tradition of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, I acknowledge their unique culture and the important role indigenous people have played in the life of this region. It is fantastic to see you here this morning, and I welcome everyone to the Legislative Assembly for a day of great debate and discussion. The state constitutional convention is an important forum for the youth of Victoria. I am told that the delegates here today represent some 55 secondary schools — 10 per cent of all secondary schools across the three sectors: government, non-government, and Catholic and independent. Today you will have a wonderful opportunity to share your ideas and opinions as you debate contemporary political and social issues that affect all of us. Some of the faces around here are recognisable from when I was at schools down at Orbost and in other various regions when you had conventions leading up to today. To help make this happen, Hansard reporters are here today to record everything you say in this chamber. I have to assure you that Hansard makes whatever you say sound a lot better than what you have actually said. The Hansard staff are fantastic, so you should look forward to reading how it comes out after Hansard records your every utterance. As a result of today’s debate, members of Parliament will have access to the proceedings and hear the voice of youth on such an important issue affecting our state’s future. As you know, the theme of this year’s convention is: should the Victorian upper house be reformed or abolished? This issue is one the current Victorian government is keen to address and one of great interest to me personally, given my role as Leader of the Government in the upper house. It is an issue the government has wanted to investigate with the Victorian community right from the beginning of its term of office. Just in this very chamber last week that issue was debated; legislation was not passed, but it is something the government is keen to pursue. To help achieve this, a constitutional commission was established to investigate possible reforms of the Victorian upper house, namely the Legislative Council. The commission heard the views of many groups and individuals before preparing its report to the Premier and the people of Victoria. The views about the future of the Legislative Council have been varied. They include maintaining the current arrangements, reforming voting and representation, and total abolition of the upper house.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 2 I understand you have all received copies of the papers prepared by the commission and a summary of its findings. I hope these papers and views of the speakers you will soon hear will help you develop an informed view about this issue. The solution we reach as Victorians is critical to the health of democracy in this state. Today you will be learning first-hand about some of the ways in which our government works here in Victoria, but more importantly, you will be looking to the future. The question you are investigating is important and has been discussed on many occasions in the past, not only in Victoria but also in other Australian states and territories. You may be interested to know, or through your studies leading to today’s convention you would be aware, that Queensland and the ACT do not have an upper house. I trust the sharing of your experiences here today will enhance your understanding of the issues affecting the way forward for the Victorian Legislative Council. Today’s speakers come from a wide range of political backgrounds. There are representatives here from the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Independents, and my Legislative Council colleague Elaine Carbines from the ALP will be here shortly. They will provide you with equally wide-ranging views to consider in small group discussions in the plebiscite that will occur at the end of today’s convention. I can assure you from my knowledge of the members that are represented here from the different political parties that they are wide and varied views. Make sure you take the opportunity to ask these speakers and yourselves these important questions; even if it is not always easy to get the answer, it is important that you take this opportunity to hear and ask questions of the speakers. The future the Legislative Council is such a critical issue for all of us to consider. By participating in this debate and making recommendations to the Victorian community about the views of today’s youth you will be affirming our ideals of democracy, equality, freedom of speech and social justice. This Legislative Assembly chamber is unique in Australia. This Parliament House is the only Australian Parliament building that has been host to a colonial Parliament, a state Parliament and a federal Parliament. So today when you are discussing whether the Victorian upper house should be reformed — that is my view, and since I do not really get a chance to speak in this debate I thought I would throw that in, just in case you had not picked it up — abolished or left as it is, remember that you are sitting in a place where many historic decisions have been made and will continue to be made. This state convention is one of the peak events of the civics and citizenship education calendar. Today’s convention has the potential to be a truly invigorating and successful forum. However, that success will be the responsibility of us all: by listening, by contributing to the debates, by respectfully challenging the views of others, and by giving your peers an equal chance to have a say. When you leave here at the end of the day you should also consider the best way to inform your peers, families, schools and local communities about why it is important for everyone to take an interest in contemporary social and political issues. In closing I thank the state parliamentary committee and teachers from the host schools of the regional conventions for their hard work in organising this event and similar events in their areas and regions throughout Victoria. I wish you well and hope that after today’s convention you will seriously consider applying to be a Victorian delegate to the national convention, which will be held in Canberra next year. Make sure you take this opportunity to enjoy this unique experience in a day of ideas and debate in our wonderful Parliament House. Now it is over to you, the students, and the other speakers here. I have no doubt that there are bound to be some budding politicians among you. Good luck for the rest of the day, and enjoy it. Don’t forget: participate and listen, and consider applying for the national convention in Canberra in March next year. Should the Victorian upper house be reformed or abolished? The ACTING CHAIR — Minister, thank you very much indeed for your opening remarks. We now move to the first part of the convention. To introduce the topic — should Victoria’s upper house be reformed or abolished? — I will ask Dr Brian Costar to address you all. Dr Costar is from the school of political and social inquiry at Monash University. He will give you an overview of today’s topic. Please welcome Dr Brian Costar. Dr COSTAR — Thank you very much for the invitation. I think this is the third Victorian state constitutional convention I have been happy and pleased enough to be involved in. It is great to see so many people

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 3 here from such diverse regions and schools. I hope you have a great day. We have started well because we are not behind time but in front — only by about 5 minutes, but my job will be to keep us in that situation. My task is to give you something of an overview, if you like, of the issues. I am aware that you have been given a good deal of quite useful and interesting reading material. I will not go into the detail of all that. I think that is not for this part of the proceedings. I am sure you will make use of that later in the day and ask questions based on it. I will not give a history of the Legislative Council either, although I will mention a few things. I would like to hurl a few grenades around the place, as it were, about some of the issues tha t are essential to this subject and make a few heretical remarks to provoke you into asking me and the members of Parliament questions, and also for your discussions. I shall provide a brief history — and it will be very brief. We have had two Legislative Councils in Victoria. The first one, 1851 to 1855, was a single — the only — legislature in Victoria. In other words, this Assembly chamber did not exist; it did not meet here anyway — the building was not constructed. One of its major jobs was to draft what became the Victorian constitution, which was then passed as an act of the British Parliament and in a sense became the basis of governance in Victoria. Once that constitution was proclaimed in 1855 we then got to two houses of Parliament, the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Why did we get them? I guess it is not surprising — and here is perhaps my first heretical remark. Perhaps today we will hear, I have seen it in the reading material, a lot of talk about the Westminster system of government. Let me be heretical and say that Australia is not a Westminster system of government, and it is a good thing that it is not. Victoria is not a Westminster system of government either, although — and this might not be a good thing — it is closer to Westminster than Australia is. The quick reason why Australia is not a Westminster system of government is that it is a federation, and that is a fundamentally different system of government from what operates in Britain. The use of the term ‘Westminster system’ has two contexts. One is just a descriptive context. It means the system of government in Great Britain. But if you were to use the Hansard search engine here and went through and put in ‘Westminster system’ you would find that most often it is used in another context, in that it is saying that often another member of Parliament, the government, the opposition or somebody else has breached the Westminster system of government. So it has another notion: that it is an ideal. So there are two contexts about it. I do not think it is a very good ideal, but we need to know it is used in two different ways, as a description and as an ideal. But historically the further you go back in time the more Victoria looks like a Westminster system; in colonial times it was, and so on. One of the fundamental things of a Westminster system of government — it is not exclusive to it — is that it has two chambers: it is a bicameral system. As the Minister for Education Services mentioned, there are alternatives: you can have unicameral parliaments, and she mentioned Queensland and the ACT. She could have gone on and mentioned the Northern Territory, New Zealand and so on. About a third of the countries around the world that have parliaments have unicameral parliaments. And they can work; there is really no doubt that they can. I will explain the problem we have in Australia for advocating unicameralism. Of course that is part of what you are going to decide. If you vote later in the day that the upper house should be abolished you change Victoria from a bicameral system to a unicameral system. It is interesting to look at federations around the world. We follow the American model and of course — to make yet another heretical statement — America is a Westminster-derived system as well; it is just further away from the Westminster system than we are. But if you scratch the American constitution you find the Westminster system of government — much transformed, but it is basically there. What do we have? We have bicameral legislatures. We follow the American model and we make our state parliaments bicameral as well. There is only one American state that does not have a bicameral Parliament, and I shall leave that as a Trivial Pursuit question — anyone who knows the answer to that will win something, although I am not sure what. But if you go to Canada and Germany, which have Westminster systems, you find that their regional assemblies, their state parliaments, if you like — except for one in Germany, which is bicameral — tend to have unicameral parliaments. So their equivalents of Victoria, Tasmania and so forth generally have single -chamber parliaments. So there is this argument here that in an American-style federation, which is what we are, it is almost unconscionable not to have a chamber like a senate, but as you can see, other chambers have opted and said, ‘All right, we’ll have two chambers at our federal level, but we’ll have one chamber at our regional level’. I just put it in; it is a option.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 4 What is the problem with unicame ralism in Australia? Queensland, to be blunt. The experience of governance in Queensland — not just under Bjelke-Petersen but right back, under Labor governments, right back to when the upper house was abolished in 1922 — has not been a good model because it has not seen much constraint on government. We have seen a lot of almost dictatorial-level government in Queensland. Much of that, it is argued, is because there is not an upper house. The opposite is not true. Just because you have an upper house does not mean you might not get unaccountable government. That is the big issue we are arguing about: how do you structure an upper house and what powers do you give it in order to get accountability? If we stay with the history for the moment, just to explain a few things, what was the original purpose of the upper house — not just this upper house but any upper house in the so-called colonies pre-Federation? It was a very clear-cut, unselfconscious one: to restrain democracy. That sounds really weird to us because we think democracy is a pretty good thing. We argue about its nature and whatever, but there are not too many people who would go around like Benjamin Disraeli did in 19th century Britain and describe democracy as a ‘despicable’ form of government. To give you an idea of this, to many people in the 19th century the word ‘democracy’ meant what the word ‘communism’ meant to many people in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. What did they mean and what were they about? That notion of democracy was rule by the mob. There is this long tradition in at least Western political thought about how to balance rule by the people so it does not become mob rule. What is the problem with mob rule? It does not respect rights and liberties. It is what is known as excessive majoritarianism. It just says, ‘We’re the majority; we rule. Everybody else has to do as we say’. That is not the system we run. I should be precise. We try to run a liberal democracy. If the role of the upper house was to restrain democracy and rule in what was called quaintly ‘the settled interests of the colony’, which generally meant wealthy landowners, you can see two things about it. It was very powerful. This is another reason why Australia is not a Westminster system any more: the House of Lords is no longer a powerful upper house, whereas our upper houses in Australia are powerful. This one, together with Tasmania’s, is probably the most powerful second chamber in the Westminster-derived world. There is a reason why it was powerful: it was there to restrain democracy, therefore you make it powerful. It was also very undemocratic in the way it was elected. The Usher of the Black Rod, whose photo is in the other chamber — the equivalent of that of the Deputy Clerk — has calculated that in order to be eligible for election to the upper house in Victoria in the late 19th century a person who wanted to run for office had to own property which in today’s values would be worth $1 million. If you did not own property worth the equivalent of $1 million, you were not eligible to nominate for election to and be a member of the upper house. I could go on and on. A quick one: it was not until 1950 that we introduced universal suffrage for the Victorian upper house. The precursor of the party represented by Mr Baxter, known as the Country Party in those days, along with a bit of prodding from the Labor Party, can be thanked for that. Up until 1950 people who did not own or rent property to a certain value could not vote for the Legislative Council. Now we start to get into some difficulties, if you like. My major contention is that what we have to do is not start the argument about what powers the upper house should have or how it should be structured or how it should be elected. They are all very important, but they are second order issues. I want to argue that the first order issue is: what do you want it to do? What functions do you want it to discharge? It is the old adage that structure follows function, not the other way round. You do not create structures for something and then say: what do we want these structures to do? You work out what you want to do, then you put together the appropriate structures to get you where you want to go. I think we are in a bit of a mismatch at the moment. The mismatch is the political architecture of the Victorian constitution, even though it has been much reformed. You have read some of the changes that have been made. The Legislative Council is not as powerful now as it was in, say, 1982 and 1949 and so on, but it is still powerful. The dilemma is that the functions and the structure are out of kilter. When the role of the other chamber was to restrain democracy they were not out of kilter. The political architecture, if you want to call it that, was dead right. But, as you know, nobody defending the upper chambers today — and if provoked, I will defend them from certain perspectives — is going to get up and say, ‘We’ve got to have upper houses to restrain democracy’. That has gone. That function is no longer politically credible. Things have changed. My contention is that the political architecture has not changed enough to fit with the modern requirement of an upper house which, as you have all read, is to be a house of review. I have not got a lot of time left, but I will just say tha t that means keeping governments accountable. We can argue how, why, whichever. As you know,

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 5 everybody who wants to argue about upper houses these days — whether they want them changed, left alone or so on — will all agree on this review arrangement. It seems to me that what we have to do is realign the structure and the function, because I think they are out of line. Just to be very brief, and to be heretical again — sorry, I cannot help it. A lot of the debate that has gone on about the bills that have come through and not come through this chamber has been about representativeness. A lot of the debates are about the model that has been suggested: we move to proportional representation and we have larger electorates, I think 8 is the current one, whereas we have 22 at the moment, and you have multiple members. If you can imagine it, it is a bit like the Senate, if you regard each of the states as an electorate. We have 12 representatives from each state and so on. If you go through the Hansard recording the debate you will see a lot of people arguing a couple of things here. One will be: how can ordinary people feel they are represented by members who have to sit for such large geographical electorates? Obviously if you turn 22 electorates into 8 in the same geographical area you are going to have much bigger electorates. Another argument is: how can you represent country and regional voters in this system? In order to have seats of equal enrolment, you have to put Geelong and outer parts of Melbourne into some of the so-called regional electorates. Otherwise they are not going to be equal in number. There is another argument, too: level of proportionality. Remember that the proposal the government has currently put up is not terribly proportional. It is not a simple choice between single -member electorates and proportional representation. There are varieties of proportional representation. Even within the one we are familiar with, which is known as the Hare-Clark system, which is the system for electing members of the Senate and which was originally developed in Tasmania, you have can have different levels of proportionality. If you want the Legislative Council to be representative of all the political opinions that are out there in Victoria, there is a simple way to do it: you make Victoria the single electorate and you just elect every member as a Legislative Councillor for Victoria, like they do in New South Wales. If you poll 4 per cent of the vote in the election for the New South Wales upper house, you have a good chance of being elected. That upper house is very proportional and it is very representative, but an issue is: is it functional? The government’s current position — the eight-by-five solution — means you have a quota not of 4 per cent, which I think is far too low, but of 17 per cent, which is higher than you have to have to get elected to the Senate. It is not very proportional. Let’s dump the whole notion of representativeness. Why should the upper house be representative of the people in the way that the lower house is? How much more representation do we want? We have 88 members of the lower house, 37 federal members of Parliament and hundreds of local government representatives; isn’t that representative enough? Why worry about representation? Why not say we do not care, we do not want upper house members to represent electors because they are represented in other ways. We want them to do something else. We want them to run accountability mechanisms, we want them operating committees of inquiry, committees of investigation and all sorts of other things. In other words, we shift the function. We could argue that the key function of this chamber is to be representative, but why should it be a clone of the other chamber? Why not go for something else? The last point I will finish on is that I think the worst thing we could do would be to stand at the door of the Legislative Council and hurl in some variety of proportional representation and then run in fear of what is going to happen. That is putting the cart before the house again. As you know, most of the debate is about proportional representation because whichever model of proportional representation you introduced here would change the political complexion of that chamber across the way dramatically. I have done a number of models and run them through, and it will probably produce something that looks like the Senate — that is, quite close numbers of the major parties but neither of the major parties having a majority and having to bargain with minor parties and Independents. Given that the last time a minor party or Independent candidate was elected into this upper house was 1946, that will be a big change. It is not surprising that members of Parliament, particularly those who sit there, are inte rested in this. This is their livelihoods, their careers. However, despite that, it is not the big issue. The big issue, and I encourage you to ask this question all day, is: what do you want it to do? The CHAIR — I belatedly welcome delegates, and in welcoming delegates acknowledge that we are meeting on the land of the Wurundjeri people and I would express my sincere thanks to them and any members of the tribe or elders who might be with us today. I also welcome the teachers and organisers who have helped delegates to be here today.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 6 Without further ado, I will introduce the people who are going to talk to us, as Brian has, about the business end of the work you have to do today. The order in which they will speak is as they appear on your program. We have first for the Australian Labor Party the Honourable Elaine Carbines, MLC. Elaine is a member for Geelong Province and she suffered the same minor technical difficulty that I did in arriving here this morning: we both had to come up the Geelong road, which will be marvellous when they are finished the extensive roadworks that are currently being done. Elaine was elected in 1999 and is the parliamentary secretary — which is like an assistant minister — to the Minister for Education and Training. Would you warmly welcome Elaine Carbines. Mrs CARBINES — Thank you very much. In the introduction to A House of Review the chairperson of the constitution commission says:

To remain relevant and effective, all structures and institutions that serve the community must be open to scrutiny, review and change, if necessary. The Bracks government strongly believes the Victorian upper house should not be abolished but, in order to make it more accountable to and reflective of the people of Victoria, it needs to change. As a member for Geelong Province I was elected in 1999, and when the next state election is called the people of Geelong will not be able to pass judgment at the ballot box on my performance as their member of Parliament because current members of the Legislative Council are elected for two terms of government. Indeed, it is quite possible that it will be 2007 before I face re-election. My 13-year-old daughter may be entitled to vote before I face the people of Geelong at an election. Conversely, those upper house members of Parliament who will be standing at the next election last faced the people in early 1996. Many of you would have been in the early years of primary school when they were elected. We believe these terms of up to eight years without scrutiny are far too long and want to reduce them to four years, with all Legislative Councillors up for election with their lower house colleagues. Indeed, we promised the Victorian people, prior to the 1999 election, that we would reform the upper house if elected to govern, not only by reducing the terms to four years but also by introducing proportional representation, which would allow minor parties and Independents to be elected to the upper house and make it truly reflective of the diversity of opinion in our state. This clearly enunciated policy was also a key provision of the agreement with the three Independent lower house members of Parliament which enabled Labor to form government just over three years ago. Our first piece of legislation to reform the upper house, consistent with our election promise to the Victorian public, was defeated by the Liberal and National parties. It is ironic that the very first time the opposition used its numbers in the upper house to defeat our legislation it was to protect their own interests.

Mr BAXTER — Oh, rubbish! Mrs CARBINES — They have gone on to defeat or deadlock at least nine other key pieces of our legislation and have forced changes to at least 158 bills. This is in stark contrast to the seven years of the Kennett government where every bill was passed and every one of the 450 amendments the Labor opposition put forward was defeated. This analysis of the record of debate in the upper house clearly illustrates that rather than working in an effective way it acted as a rubber stamp when the Liberal and National parties were in power and is now acting as an obstruction when Labor is in power. The independent Constitution Commission of Victoria set up by the Bracks government was asked to consult the Victorian people about the need for reform of the upper house. Taking 12 months, the commission received 196 submissions and held public forums across the state, including one in my home town of Geelong. It concluded that:

… the climate and need for change are present. The commission recommended fixed four-year terms and the introduction of proportional representation in the upper house. This system is used by the Senate and the majority of upper houses in other states. While there are Independent members of Parliament in the lower house currently, no Independent or minor party members of Parliament, such as the Greens or the Democrats, have been elected to this upper house in the past 50 years. Introducing proportional representation would allow for the election of such candidates, reducing the influence of the major parties and

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 7 thereby better reflecting the diversity of views people hold across Victoria. This would make the upper house more relevant and encourage greater participation in the parliamentary process. It would make it a real house of review. We have also accepted one of the models proposed by the commission, that of dividing Victoria into eight upper house electorates that will elect five members. This will reduce the number of members of Parliament in the upper house from 44 to 40 and see a slight increase in the representation of country and regional seats. The CHAIR — The honourable member has 2 minutes. Mrs CARBINES — For example, there are currently four upper house MPs between Werribee and the South Australian border; this model would see an increase to five. As you would be aware, last week our legislation to reform the upper house was again defeated, this time in the lower house. While we are disappointed and frustrated, our resolve to reform the upper house is undiminished. It has been independently scrutinised and reviewed and found wanting. Change is necessary and has widespread support. Reform of the upper house has occurred at different points in our history to ensure that it more accurately reflects our society. Indeed, the upper house bears little resemblance this year to how it was originally set up in 1851 to protect the interests of the landed, male, upper classes — and thank goodness for that! However, the Bracks government says that further reform of the upper house is needed to make it more accountable and reflective of our society. Not only is it much needed, it is long overdue. The CHAIR — I now introduce our second speaker, Mr Craig Ingram, who was elected as the member for East Gippsland in the Legislative Assembly at the general election of 1999. Craig is an Independent member of this chamber. Would you please welcome him. Mr INGRAM — My parliamentary colleagues, delegates, parents and teachers, the organisers, and Brian: it is a pleasure to speak today because this is an extremely important issue. I would like to give you an Independent’s view. That having been said, you will hear today a range of views from the members representing the political parties. Likewise, among the Independents there is a diversity of views on parliamentary reform. There are currently about 40 Independent members sitting in parliaments across Australia. Independents get elected to Parliament because normally they have an incredible passion for the democracy and the system we have. But they also normally get elected, particularly in lower houses, because the parties that are represented there have failed in one form or another to adequately represent the views of those constituents. And someone stands and gets elected. I will go to what democracy is, and what we believe democracy is. The dictionary meaning of democracy is government by the people, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised then through their elected agents. We could argue about whether that is the right form of democracy, or that that is what we really are about achieving, but members of political parties would have us believe that democracy should only be exercised once every three or four years at the polling booth or, in the case of our upper house, once every eight years. Real democracy is when the community can influence policy and influence the operation of government through its elected representatives. I think one would have to argue very strongly that there is a lot of cynicism and distrust out in the community because people do not believe they have the influence they should have over the parliamentary process. That is why I think we have a system where governments get elected for usually two terms and then fail, normally because they fail to adequately follow through with the wishes of the people. Normally governments get unelected rather than oppositions getting elected. It is my very strong view that we do need to change the upper house. We need reform of the upper house to allow the community to have a greater influence and to have a house in Victoria that provides a check on rampant executive governments of either form. Our upper house needs to work and needs to have a diversity of views put in it so that it really is representative. We could discuss how we should change the upper house. As I said, there are a lot of different views on that, but it is my view that unless that real reform is achieved cynicism and distrust about public access to our democracy and politicians will continue to grow. Tongue in cheek, I could say the ultimate representative democracy for the upper house is to give them a pension for life and then tell them, ‘Bugger off’, and then at every — —

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 8 The CHAIR — I think ‘bugger off’ is unparliamentary, Craig! Mr INGRAM — Sorry, Madam Chair. Then at every election we should take a random selection of 44 members of the public and put them in the upper house. We would get an upper house of a real representative nature. I do not think that would work, but we would probably get a higher level of debate! I will let that one run through. I think the question is: what do we expect the upper house to do, and what do we expect Parliament to do? Parliament’s role is to scrutinise government. In this chamber you have a government. Every member of the government believes their role is to defend the government’s decisions and to sell the government’s position. The role of members of the opposition there is very clearly to be an alternative to a government, but also to make the government look bad and bring it down . The government and the opposition also have a representative role, but it is a role within government and opposition that is very partisan and in which they put strongly opposing views. When you have an opposition-dominated upper house its role is to try to destabilise and discredit the government. When you have a government-dominated upper house its role is to defend the government. Basically the upper house does not scrutinise government in either form. At one time it is trying to destabilise it and at another time it is trying to defend it all the time. To have a real check in the upper house you need to have some form of independence there that looks at legislation differently and looks at scrutiny differently through a committee system that is not either government or opposition dominated. I say clearly that when you have an opposition-controlled upper house, or one party dominating the upper house, it is not going to wish to change it; likewise, when the current government, the Labor Party government, has control in the lower house it is basically in its interests to try and change the upper house because it wishes wish to get control over it too. During the Labor governments before the Kennett government took power the Legislative Council was controlled for the whole period except for three months by the Liberal and National parties, and although there were a large number of problems in the community, including some real financial problems, not one committee was formed to look at some of those problems. If that had been done we would have had a better opportunity to work out where we went wrong and not go there again. During that period 97 per cent of legislation was passed. In the Kennett years it was the same thing. just about all the legislation went straight through, and a large number of reforms that were supposedly required because of the mismanagement of the previous government went through basically unchecked. I finish by saying we live in an age where many people in our democracy have to justify the institutions they represent; they continually have to prove they are adding value to that organisation to justify their jobs. I think the challenge for the Legislative Counc il is to demonstrate how it adds value to our democracy and our institutions to protect them. I strongly suggest that we do need to have reform. We need to have a check, no matter who is in government, and it needs to be reflective of the community. We may disagree on the model, but I would say that there needs to be an open and frank debate that is outside party dominance, because the people need to take back control of the Legislative Council. The CHAIR — It is now my pleasure to introduce Dr Robert Dean. Robert is the member for Berwick in this chamber. He was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1992. Would you welcome Robert Dean. Dr DEAN — Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: Parliament is the repository of power. It makes the rules and regulations whic h govern the rest of the community. It therefore has certain requirements upon it. It must be acceptable to the community and respected by it. It must have as its object the welfare and betterment of the community. It must be enlightened, and it must represent the aspirations of the people. To be representative is not necessarily to be the Westminster system. There are many Asian monarchies and dictatorships and moderate Arab countries which comply with those requirements which are in fact dictatorships. The trouble with a benign dictatorship is that history shows there is a possibility that it will be transitory — that is, that it depends on the personality of those people who are participating, and they are not always necessarily the right people for the job. Consequently democracy is the best long-term and the safest option, but with no guarantees, as we found out in Germany before the Second World War. The Westminster system is just one form of democracy which was effectively an historical accident, and our Parliament as we see it here today is a culmination of that historical accident. In fact, as was pointed out to you before, the upper house originally started as protection for the King. But sometimes in our lives accidents work, and

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 9 you may have said to yourself a number of times, ‘I didn’t actually intend to go that way, but isn’t it lucky that I did?’. The bicameral process of the Westminster system is also historically an accident, and it is true that it is not an essential part and nor is its absence critical to democracy. I disagree with our opening speaker; I believe in the Bjelke-Petersen era the former Queensland Premier would have easily had control of the upper house as well, and as a consequence those somewhat dictatorial decisions would have occurred in any event. The point is, does the upper house work? The reason I support an upper house is that it diffuses power. I believe in it for the same reason that I believe in federation — because it diffuses power. One of the great guarantees of the people is that if you diffuse power among a number of bodies, the opportunities for excess by the executive is lessened. If an upper house is to work, it must be representative or it will not have the support of the people. It must not give power to a minority, because that is abhorrent to democracy. It should give influence to minorities to enable their influence to be felt, whether by way of a platform or by way of direct influence on the members. It must not disfranchise certain areas of Victoria such as the regional areas, and it must add to the system by adding new ideas and new approaches. The check against extremism is something you must think very carefully about. Be careful that you do not get mixed up between your desire for an outcome and your desire to look at the process. If you are a person who believes in, say, the Greens party, it would be easy for you to say, ‘Proportional representation will give the Greens representation in the upper house and they may have the balance of power, and therefore my policies may actually be dictated to by the upper house and I will get those policies’. That is not what you are here to do today. You are here today to say what is the fairest outcome of all. The present system is not perfect, and the Liberal Party has said it is open to changes and that it has proposed changes of its own to the upper house. We all agree that some changes are appropriate. The boundaries of the present upper house are chosen by the Electoral Commissioner. They are, in fact, reflective of the lower house boundaries, and therefore those people who wish to say it is not representative had better take it up with the Electoral Commissioner, because he is the person who sets the boundaries and he says that they are representative. Labor’s history of lack of success in the upper house is reflected by its success in Victoria as a whole, particularly in the lower house. We have eight-year terms in the upper house — that is, longer terms or staggered terms, which are reflective of the system in virtually all the other states in Australia — because it provides a tail, if you like, to the lower house. It means that to gain control of the upper house you either must have an absolutely decisive victory in the lower house or you must have two significant victories in the lower house. If you have those, you will have control of the upper house and you will have control of the legislative program. If you sneak in by a small minority in the lower house, you will not have the control of the upper house. This system was introduced by former Labor Party Premier, Mr Cain, because he believed it was a fair system. If the system is changed to proportional representation, what will happen is what happens now in the Senate — that is, that the parties will be evenly balanced and the minority parties will have the balance of power. Therefore, the lower house — which is the government’s house, which has its boundaries set by the Electoral Commissioner, and which everybody agrees is the democratic house that should set the agenda — will be frustrated by a minority party. However much we might like the minority party, that is not democracy. Beware of simplistic arguments. For virtually a third of the Bolte period, which was a long and extended period of conservative government — and remember, as I said to you, if you have control of the lower house and you have it for an extended period in a decisive way, you will end up controlling the upper house — there was a hostile upper house, whether with the Nationals or with Labor . During the current period with the Liberal Party controlling the upper house, over 200 bills have been passed and only 6 bills have been blocked. Virtually all the amendments that have been proposed have been done by agreement. Why is that? Because if the upper house amends a bill and sends it back, the lower house just says no and sends it back again. So if the upper house wishes to allow that legislation through — and most government legislation is appropriate — it must eventually determine, argue and balance out those amendments.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 10 It is very important to remember that if you wish to change this system, as was said by the opening speaker, you do not do it blithely. The reason the last attempt by the Labor government to change the upper house did not get past the lower house was that the Independents voted against it. The Independents said, ‘We will not blithely allow changes to the upper house unless we are satisfied we are going forward and not backwards’. I remember the words of the Independent, Russell Savage, who said, ‘I am told by the Labor Party that this existing system gives more power to the Liberal Party. Why should I vote for a system which, quite rightly, because of the use of preferences and minority parties, will simply change the balance and give more power to the Labor Party?’. In other words, we have to have a system that allows the minority parties to have influence, but it must not be a system that will frustrate the lower house. The CHAIR — We have saved the best until last, delegates. The Honourable Bill Baxter is the member for North Eastern Province in the Legislative Council, and Bill will forgive me if I cannot remember the year he was elected. Mr BAXTER — In 1973.

The CHAIR — Would you welcome the Honourable Bill Baxter. Mr BAXTER — Thank you, Madam Chair. To give you a bit of potted history, I was first elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1973. I met the fate of some colleagues who come here, and in 1976 I was defeated — I will not go into the history of all that. I was elected to the Legislative Council in 1978 and have been successful in being returned there at each subsequent election. Naturally, I have had a long experience in the house, one that has been most valuable to me and one which I have thoroughly enjoyed, and I hope I have been able to make a contribution. Ladies and gentlemen, I will start off by making a comment or two about the package of material that was circulated to you three or four weeks ago in preparation for today’s events. It included a selection of newspaper articles which were intended to be authoritative. One of then from the Sunday Age columnist Ray Cassin said this:

But rural voters continue to be overrepresented in proportion to their numbers. The following week Mr Cassin had to say this in his column:

Several readers have pointed out the basic premise of last week’s Undercurrents — that is the name of his series of columns —

was false. The existing boundaries of Victoria’s Legislative Council provinces do not, as I had claimed, inherently favour the overrepresentation of rural voters. I draw your attention to that for this reason: if we are being circulated with this material and it is being held up as authoritative, and the author of it makes a very basic mistake, what store can we place on it? I am saying to you: look at the material that is given to you very, very closely indeed and ask questions, because it is not always accurate. The paper also referred you to Mr Ingram’s web site. Quite a good idea, I would have thought. I had a look myself and I found that the material on Mr Ingram’s web site about the government’s proposals for the upper house reform are more than 12 months out of date. He talks about the Labor government wanting to reduce the upper house to 35 members on the basis of five electorates each electing seven members, but that is not what the bill defeated in this house last week was about at all, because it was about eight regions and five members. Again I say to you: look very closely indeed at the material that is given to you. Each of the parties speaking here today was invited to prepare a brief note to go in your package, but only the National Party responded. Mine is included in your package, and I am disappointed that my colleagues did not do likewise, but I say to you: have a good look at my document, pull it apart and question it. Ladies and gentlemen, the National Party is not opposed to change in the upper house. As Dr Costar acknowledged in his opening remarks, it was my predecessors in the Country Party who introduced universal franchise to the Legislative Council in 1952. In more recent times we have supported changes to the operation of the Legislative Council. When I came here we did not even have questions without notice in the upper house and now we clearly have tha t, and we have introduced new standing orders in the last year or two that give even greater opportunity for rank-and-file members.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 11 I am very opposed to the government’s idea to change the rules because the Labor Party finds it difficult to get a majority in the upper house. I am very concerned about its move to go to a form of proportional representation. Today you heard Mrs Carbines say it, that, ‘We, the Labor Party, want to give minority groups and Independents the opportunity for representation in the upper house’. What do they do? They select from the commission’s recommendations a particular model which will set the quota, as Dr Costar said, at 17 per cent. What minor party or what Independent could get over that hurdle? The Senate quota is 14.2 per cent and we all know how hard it is for the Democrats and other minority parties to get over that hurdle. Yes, it would probably win more seats for the Labor Party, but it would consolidate and reinforce the strength of the major parties in the upper house. Ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy knows no bounds in politics. You have heard Mrs Carbines say today that it will increase country representation. She talked about the Western District going from four to five members, but she did not say that the electorate would include the suburbs of Geelong. Also, she did not say that Mr Bracks’s definition of ‘country’ includes Frankston. Do those of you here today who come from Frankston believe you live in country Victoria? Again, ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy knows no bounds in politics. Then they say, ‘Oh, yes, we will overcome that, we will require candidates to have their place of residence on the ballot paper’. What would that do? In the province that I represent it would include Sunbury and it would encourage political parties to have candidates coming from the big centres where the big vote is, and again isolated country areas and remote districts that I represent would miss out. Again, I say it is a con. Accountability: when I walk down the main streets of any of the towns in my electorate people know me, I know them and people put the wood on me, but if I was part of, say, a Senate -type system which this recommendation is — who can name the Victorian senators? Who can even name one Victorian senator? They are virtual non-entities because they represent the whole state. It is far too big, so what do they do? They cannot form any personal relationship with individual voters in a specific electorate; they cuddle up to the party machine, the big boys down at party headquarters, so that they maintain a winnable position on the party ticket at each election. Accountability goes out the window. I do not believe that is the way to go. I want to have politicians walk down the street and have somebody able to actually influence them because they are relying on their vote. I want to briefly talk about supply, which has not been mentioned today, but Labor will tell you, ‘That dreadful upper house threatened the government and knocked back supply’. When was supply last denied in this Parliament? It was 50 years ago, in 1952. Which party denied supply? The Australian Labor Party — again, hypocrisy knows no bounds in politics. This proposal of the government to introduce proportional representation in the upper house with the quota at the level proposed would probably deliver my party — the National Party — the balance of power, and you would say, ‘Well, why aren’t you going for it, why don’t you grab it with both hands?’. Yes, it is an attractive option, but I hope I and my colle agues in the National Party are made of sterner stuff than that. We are not grasping just for a short-term benefit or some position of power beyond our numbers, because we want change in the upper house that, as Dr Dean and Dr Costar have said, is properly thought through and does make it a proper representative chamber and house of review, one that can hold the government to account, and not be dominated by a small party that simply by the dint of circumstances and the way you construct electoral boundarie s happens to hold the balance of power. I do not believe that is the way to go. Finally, I am not happy with the way the Legislative Council is operating at the moment. It has changed for the worse since I came here in the sense of being a public debating forum. When I first came here, if the likes of Jack Galbally, Ivan Swinburne, Alan Hunt and so on were to make a major speech, the chamber would fill up and people came to listen. Now we speak so often to an empty chamber. Too many members do not come in to listen to the debate before they are due to speak. They come in and make a set speech, then they do not stay to hear the response to their speech. That is not a debating chamber and that is not a Parliament. If we made the place work just a little bit better under the current rules we would have a much more responsive Parliament. I hope today you look critically at all the information and that you have listened to what has been said. If you can come up with an idea to improve the workings of the upper house, we will all be better off. The CHAIR — Delegates can now do a range of things. I ask you all to look at your booklets so that we can remind ourselves what we can do during this session. We have had the benefit of the wisdom of four very

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 12 different positions on the topic we are dealing with today — that is, whether the upper house should be reformed or, indeed, abolished. You now have an opportunity to ask any questions of the speakers, to ask questions to clarify something that you may not have understood or to challenge any of the views of any of the speakers. Please do not do all three at once as it becomes confusing. Miss BUFFHAM -FRIEDRICKSON (Eltham High School) — Dr Dean, if you could forget that you are a Liberal and think as a citizen who is not in politics, government is supposed to represent an absolute majority and as many citizens in Victoria and Australia as possible. Do you not think proportional representation would allow a wider range of views of the people of Victoria, and Australia for that matter, to come forward? Why can we not have as many parties in the upper house to represent more views of the people of our state and how it is run rather than just two? Dr DEAN — That is a very good question. It depends how you define ‘representative’. ‘Representative’ could mean that the majority, not the minority, rules; or ‘representative’ could mean you get a wide range of views into the decision-making process. Those who want proportional representation choose the latter definition, and those who do not choose the former. My view is that if you are to govern with the support of the community you must have a situation where they understand it is the majority in the community whose views are eventually upheld. Proportional representation allows or in fact encourages a situation where the party with the majority and which has won government cannot get its decisions upheld because in the upper house the minority party which does not have the full backing and support of the community frustrates those decisions and stops them happening. I would like to see a system where minority views are able to be aired in the upper house, but not one where they dictate or prevent the decisions of the majority party being activated. It is a matter of trying to find a system that allows a platform for debate for minorities. I will give you one short example.

The CHAIR — The honourable member will now give one short example. Delegates, this is your time. Mr FOSTER (Croydon Secondary College) — Mrs Carbines, I refer to the executive summary produced by the Australian Labor Party. Why is it so important to reduce the numbers of members in the Legislative Council, and how can you provide better representation by cutting the number of MPs and, by the looks of things, saving money? Mrs CARBINES — Thank you for your question, Adam. We believe it is important to reduce the number of MPs in the upper house. We believe it is important to reduce the cost of running the upper house, which runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars. We believe our proposal for proportional representation will increase rather than decrease the amount of representation in the upper house because it will provide for the representation of other parties. At the moment there is no representation in the upper house other than by the major parties, and we believe there is such a diversity of opinion across Victoria that many people want to vote for other parties, and indeed Independents, as they did for Mr Ingram in the lower house. We believe the model we are putting forward will actually increase representation, and the slight reduction of four MPs will be a cost-saving exercise for the Victorian taxpayer. Miss SMITH (Melbourne Girls Grammar) — Dr Dean, you mentioned that the role of the Legislative Council was to diffuse power. How did it diffuse power under the Kennett government, and how can you ensure it will continue to diffuse power in a system where there is a majority of the same party in both upper and lower houses? Dr DEAN — Firstly, in relation to the Kennett experience, a number of amendments were introduced in the upper house, and they were certainly debated in the upper house. That gave the Labor Party in the upper house another opportunity to have its debate. What I said in relation to the present system is that if you have a very significant victory — that is, a large proportion of the Victorian people vote for a party and you have a massive victory in this house so that you have a very large majority, as Kennett did, and I have forgotten wha t it was but it was extraordinary and it did not need the National Party, although the National Party cooperated — then you have a signal from the community which says, ‘We very much want you to take control’. That is the signal from the community. In that situation you have an opportunity of also gaining control in the upper house. So yes, you will not have power as diffused, but the moment your numbers go back, the moment you have a less significant victory, then you move into a situation where another pa rty may gain control in the upper house. That is the system as it works.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 13 I believe a state government can operate on that basis, because it is more to do with grassroots issues than is the federal government, just as we never consider having a bicameral system in council because it is acting at the grassroots level. The level of sophistication and diffusing of power increases as you go up the system from local to state to federal government. I believe the system we have here in the state, where it follows the extent of the vote in the lower house, is a good system for a state government. Mr WRIGHT (Bellarine Secondary College) — Mrs Carbines, can you defend Mr Baxter’s argument that you and your party are hypocritical? Mrs CARBINES — Congratulations on being here. You are from Bellarine Secondary College which is in my electorate. It is great to see such a great state school represented here. I have to tell you that Mr Baxter is the ultimate hypocrite. You will notice when I was speaking he was constantly interjecting. He does it all the time when I speak in the upper house as well; he is very good at it. Mr Baxter is the ultimate hypocrite because the major beneficiary of the current system in the upper house is the National Party. In the last three elections the National Party secured only 8 per cent of the vote across Victoria, yet it has 16 per cent of the seats in the upper house. When you talk about hypocrisy, Bill Baxter is your man. The CHAIR — I have never had the privilege of sitting in the upper house, but in this house we can say that an honourable member’s argument may be hypocritical, but we desperately try not to call one another names. Mrs CARBINES — Sorry, I forgot I was in the Legislative Assembly and not in the upper house. Mr Baxter accused the ALP of being hypocritical. We are not hypocritical; we are trying to reform the upper house to make it more representative. Mr Baxter is happy to sit on his eight-year terms; I am not. I am happy to have my performance judged by the people of Geelong every four years. We want to reform the upper house. It is not effective. You have heard about the scrutiny that our government has been subjected to, and many would say that was fair. But there was no scrutiny when Mr Baxter and Dr Dean were in power as members of the Kennett government. There was no scrutiny of the excesses of the sacking of thousands of teachers, nurses and police, or scrutiny of the way the Kennett government operated. Miss KONTZELIS (Lowther Hall AGS) — Mrs Carbines, you spoke of reducing the terms in the upper house from eight years to four years; how do you plan to maintain stability in the house if you do this? Mrs CARBINES — We are very much in favour of making sure the upper house is representative. At the moment I do not think the upper house is, by being stable as you infer, actually effective. It is not representative of the people of Victoria and their diversity of views. As I have said many times, we are keen to make sure other people have a say. At the moment the National Party is overrepresented in the upper house. Other parties that have secured a similar vote to the National Party do not even have a seat. We want to make sure the upper house is effective. Stability is one thing, but being effective is another, and at the moment the upper house is a very ineffective house. It is not a house of review. As I have said before, it is a rubber stamp when the Liberal–National parties in coalition are in power; it is a house of obstruction when we are in power. It is important that it becomes more reflective of a diversity of views so it can truly become a house of review and work effectively. It is time we reviewed and reformed the upper house. Miss C. WILLIAMS (Glen Waverley Secondary College) — Dr Dean, in your initial address you said the parliamentary system should give voice to minorities. Do you think our current system gives an adequate voice to minorities? If so, how, and, if not, what changes would you introduce? Dr DEAN — Before I start can I say that I do not call Mrs Carbines hypocritical because we do not attack persons, but I disagree with her arguments. In relation to the question she posed about the Kennett government removing or reducing the public service, there was a significant reason for that. That reason is that the previous government had reduced Victoria to a basket case and it was necessary to do that. In relation to your question, I do not believe the minorities have sufficient influence and representation in the upper house at the moment. I am struggling to find a system that would enable them to do that; certainly a more significant committee system might be a way of ensuring that that came about. Do not forget that minority parties do have a lot of influence; both major parties have to court the minority parties’ preferences. In the final result many, many seats are determined by the way the minority parties’ preferences go.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 14 The Liberal Party cannot afford to have, say, the Greens or others such as the Democrats hating its guts, nor can the Labor Party. So they do have influence in the system. I would like to see them have a much better platform in the upper house, but I do not want to see them controlling the upper house, because that would mean that democracy, in my terms, would be destroyed. Mr PELEKANAKIS (Westbourne Grammar School) — Dr Costar, could you explain your assertion of the notion that the upper house representatives should be gotten rid of? Explain what you mean by that. Dr COSTAR — Yes; Mr Ingram touched on this and said in a somewhat humorous way that we might not elect the upper house. That should be given more serious consideration than you think. Having unelected chambers does not mean that a place is not a democracy. Britain is no less a democracy because the House of Lords is not elected; it is a question of what powers it has. What I am getting at is that you may have noticed that a lot of the argument here has, in a sense, foundered around the issue of representativeness and representation. What I am putting forward is that with the other chamber — I am not arguing about it for this chamber — why the obsession with representation? I am sure Mr Baxter is pleased to meet people in his electorate. I happen to know my two upper house members by name, and I know them. But it does not matter if I do not. I do not care where they live, I do not care what their names are; however, I do care about what they do.

Dr DEAN interjected. The CHAIR — Order; the Chair controls the debate. Interjections across the table are unruly. Dr COSTAR — There is my view. I said that I think you should consider whether representativeness for a second chamber is what it is really about, or whether it is about something else. The CHAIR — The honourable member’s has expired. There are further opportunities for questions: delegates. Miss MITIC (Marian College) — My question is to Mr Baxter. Do you believe the upper house should act in a less partisan manner and genuinely do its job in reviewing legislation rather than act as having representatives of parties, and if so, how do you think this could be achieved? The CHAIR — Good question. Mr BAXTER — That is a good question. To begin with, because it goes to your question, I will refer to Mrs Carbines’s allegation that the National Party is overrepresented because it gets 16 per cent of the seats and 8 per cent of the vote. If she cared to look a bit harder she would see that we are part of a strong regional party and that if we stood in every electorate we would probably also win 16 per cent of the vote but would not win any more seats. Last time I was elected with 60 per cent of the vote; does she think I should not be here? In the upper house the National Party is probably the very example of what you are talking about. Except in the period of the Kennett government when it was part of the government, it has sometimes supported the Labor Party and it has sometimes supported the Liberal Party, whether it has been in government or in opposition. For example, with the box-ironbark legislation that is coming up it could be that the Liberal and National parties may not necessarily be voting together. I would like to see much more of that interaction. A tremendous amount of influence is exercised by the upper house on legislation, both in the party rooms and between the chambers. A lot of amendments are made, and often amendments are introduced in the upper house because of all the discussion that has gone on between the chambers, not so much the discussion that has actually gone on on the floor of the chamber. Mr McKEE (Westbourne Grammar School) — Dr Costar, do you disagree with Mr Baxter’s assertion about the citizens of his electorate knowing him by name and face? Do you consider this unnecessary? Dr COSTAR — As I said, it seems to me that it is pleasant for everybody that there is this recognition factor. But what I am trying to get at is whether or not Mr Baxter put that forward as a notion of representativeness.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 15 He clearly knows the people, and they know him, and therefore he can represent them. I agree that he doe s, as do all members of the Parliament. What I am getting at is: why do you want to duplicate this? Remember, the argument that goes on — and I am putting a case; that is why I am here — is: why do you want two chambers that are essentially the same? Unless you want to fall back on the old argument of a second opinion being better than one opinion — then we could keep going with a third opinion being better than two, and a fourth opinion being better than three, and having multiple chambers. I am coming back to the point that, as I have read the debates, there has been a lot of stumbling about how to do it. Dr Dean was thinking of a system where you could get minority representation but without them having excessive influence, but I think we could jettison the idea of it being a representative chamber which operates accountability mechanisms through committees — which may even have people on them who are not parliamentarians; our constitution is flexible enough to allow that. People could be appointed for a short time. Just quickly, last year a Labour Lord, Lord Desai from the House of Lords, was here talking to a group in Parliament. His argument was that the House of Lords is the most expert chamber in the world. He is a professor of economics. His example was that when the House of Lords had a debate on stem cell legislation, in addition to a whole lot of other people, eight professors of medicine and biochemistry contributed to the debate. You might say that that is elitism — well, yes, the House of Lords is in a sense elite — but given that it does not have the power to block budgets and that it can only delay legislation, that is not a real problem. It provides something else; the idea is that the media will pick up and report on matters and they will get out there in the community. That is what I am getting at. Just because a chamber might not, as Mr Ingram jovially mentioned, be elected, does not mean the place is not necessarily a democracy. It depends on a range of other things. Mr LENTHALL (Bairnsdale Secondary College) — Mr Baxter, it came across during your speech that you were not impressed with the proposed overrepresentation of country citizens. However, being a country citizen myself I have no knowledge of the members of the Legislative Council in my area. This is mainly because of the widespread townships and the long travelling times to get to each place. How will your views benefit the voters of rural areas in their quest for representation equal with that of their city counterparts? Mr BAXTER — For clarification, you said you had no knowledge of the maps or of your upper house members?

Mr LENTHALL — Upper house members. Mr BAXTER — If you have no knowledge now with the currently sized electorates — and the Gippsland Province is a huge electorate — you would have even less opportunity for that knowledge with the proposal the current government is intending. That would include Phillip Island, the Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Gembrook and Olinda in the same electorate as Bairnsdale. I take the point Dr Costar makes. If you had a different system, maybe you would not need to be so well known. But I see it as accountability. If you are well known, people feel free to approach you, and that puts a lot more pressure on me as a member to be accountable. You happen to be represented by two pretty switched-on guys in Gippsland Province — Philip Davis and Peter Hall; I will speak to them both and inform them that they are not known well enough in Bairnsdale. Miss WHITMORE (Penola Catholic College) — I address my question to Mr Craig Ingram, an Independent. Do you feel that an increase of Independent members in the Legislative Council would lead to an increase in Independent representation in the Legislative Assembly? If so, would this not disrupt the balance of majority governments? Mr INGRAM — First of all, Independents stand because they are disappointed with the way their current sitting members are performing. We need 50 per cent plus 1 vote within the electorate in an Assembly seat, so it is very difficult to get elected. Independents get elected only when the people in that area are very disappointed with their representation. When Mr Baxter was talking about how many Independents would get elected, I put my hand up because I think I would have got elected if we had the province model last time around. If we had had statewide proportional representation I would have more than likely stood for an upper house seat because that is where traditionally

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 16 Independent and minority views are heard. The National Party may still have had the seat of Gippsland East and there may have been the scrutiny of government that ensured that the local members listened more closely to the concerns, wishes and aspirations of the community. I think it depends on the system. If you had a system that allowed minority and Independent views to be heard in the upper house you would probably see more people standing for upper house seats and fewer for lower house seats, because this is basically where government is formed. It is difficult, but it depends on the model which would allow people to be heard. Miss De GANS (University High School) — I direct my question to the Honourable Elaine Carbines. I was just wondering whether you honestly believe that if Labor were in power in the upper house you would be so concerned about making these changes and whether this is not just a ploy to get the upper hand over the Liberal Party in both houses.

The CHAIR — You’re too young to be that cynical! Mrs CARBINES — That was a great question. The Labor Party is strongly of the view that the upper house needs to be reformed no matter who is in power. We believe it needs to be more accountable and more reflective of the Victorian people. We took that policy to the 1999 state election. It was pa rt of the charter that we signed with the Independents. When our legislation was defeated we set up the independent Constitution Commission Victoria, which after consulting the Victorian people has also come up with the view that reform is necessary. The Labor Party is totally committed to reforming the upper house. I appreciate your sentiment, but we believe it needs to be more accountable to and more reflective of the people. In that way it would be a house of review and the parliamentary process would be a much more effective one. I hope that answers your question. Miss SHEATHER (Warragul Regional College) — I think voting every four years is a reasonable idea, especially when you take into account that your 13-year-old daughter will be able to vote at the election after next. How do you feel about fixed four-year terms? Mrs CARBINES — The Labor Party supports fixed four-year terms. It is very important that we remove the opportunity that governments currently have to determine when they go to an election, which basically suits them. We are determined to make sure that reform of the upper house includes fixed four-year terms. Obviously when we finally are successful in reforming the upper house — and I believe we will be — we will be introducing fixed four-year terms. It is very important that upper house MPs are open for scrutiny by their electorate every four years, and not up to eight years as is currently the case. Miss DALE (Penola Catholic College) — My question is to Mr Baxter. Considering that the upper house is viewed as a rubber stamp for the Liberal and National parties, do you personally believe it is unjust that members of the upper house are perhaps a little bit too comfortable and stable in their eight-year terms without scrutiny, and do you believe this should be changed at all? Mr BAXTER — No, I do not feel very comfortable, I have to say that — not at all! I am fascinated at the mention by Mrs Carbines of fixed four-year terms. I wonder why the Premier is rushing off to an election after just three years — which I think we will see in the next week or two. Be that as it may, I do not think the upper house is a rubber stamp at all. It is certainly not a rubber stamp for the Labor government; we hold that government to account, which is our task, duty and responsibility. But I go back to the days of the Kennett government, when it is often alleged somehow or other the upper house was a rubber stamp for the Kennett government. I dispute that. I was a minister in that government. As a minister I was put under extreme pressure at question time by my own backbench. I think the calibre of questions we hear from the Labor government’s backbench now has declined in comparison — the government backbench is a very tame cat. Certainly one of the reasons we did not have a large number of amendments from the Labor Party during the Kennett government was that it was a very dispirited party. I understand that. Its numbers were reduced to only 10 members out of 44, a very small group, many of whom had been there for any very long time, and many of whom, I would have to say, had come from union backgrounds or working in the Labor Party who had been given a position in the upper house as some sort of a reward.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 17 If you read some of Dr Costar’s writings you will see that he says about the calibre of people elected or selected by political parties for the upper house that the two major parties have perhaps been not as assiduous as they might have been in the past in selecting people of sufficient calibre. I put any lack of good work by the upper house during the Kennett government’s time down to a lack of willingness and commitment by the then dispirited Labor opposition. Mr Du VERGIER (Brauer College) — Dr Costar, it would seem from the opinions given today that having two houses is not universal. We have countless local governments, seven state Parliaments with two houses, and all this plus a national system. Are we not faced with overrepresentation and not a lack of representation? How is an upper house assisting Victoria, and why is removing the upper house not realistically discussed? Dr COSTAR — It is a very good question. I agree with the second part of the three points, that is that there is too much representation — or to put it another way, changing the upper house to a non-representative system would not be dangerous because there is sufficient other representation. On the point about unicameralism versus bicameralism, I said briefly that in a number of federations such as Australia — I used the examples of Germany and Canada — they take the view that bicameralism is appropriate at the federal level but at the regional level they go for unicameralism. by the way, no-one has nominated the one state in the United States that is unicameral. As I said before, the re is no doubt that unicameral parliaments can work, but I think a number of speakers have rightly pointed out that each country, and even each state, may I say, has its own political history. What is appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another. For example, I will come clean and say that I am in favour of forms of proportional representation for upper houses but not for lower houses. I get myself into fights with members of proportional representation societies when I say things like, ‘Hell will freeze over before I ever support proportional representation in a lower house’. Broadly speaking, I think Australia has got it pretty right in terms of the parliamentary systems — that is, we generally have single -member districts in the lower house, preferential voting, and we have proportional in the upper house. As you know the Tasmanians, just to be perverse, do it the other way round. Of course the Queenslanders do not have the problem because they abolished their upper house years ago. I do not think it is a bad system the way it is worked through. Okay, it is frustrating for governments at times to have to negotiate with Democrats, Greens, Independents and so on. Tough, is my response to that — that’s politics. Mr PEARCE (Nathalia Secondary College) — My question is for Mrs Carbines. I come from a remote area in rural Victoria. You do not think there would be any negative consequences for areas like that if proportional representation were in? Mrs CARBINES — Obviously, as the Labor Party is putting forward a proposal to introduce proportional representation, we believe that would not be the case. The model we are supporting would divide the state into eight electorates, with five people to be elected to the upper house from each electorate, so you would have appropriate and adequate representation. The totality of that representation for rural and regional Victoria would see a slight increase in the number of upper house seats, from the current 16 out of 44 to 15 out of 40 from rural and regional Victoria. Five people would be representing you, and your representation would be undiminished. As I said before, in my electorate of Geelong Province, which spans from Werribee to Jan Juc, there are two members. With the new model there would be five me mbers from Werribee to the South Australian border. Currently, there are four, so there would be an increase in representation. So obviously, Joel, we believe your representation would not be diminished, it would be improved. Mr ORAVEC (The Grange Seconda ry College) — I direct my question to Mrs Elaine Carbines. It has been claimed that the current upper house reform arrangements that Labor supports will in fact make it quite difficult for minor parties or Independents to be elected because of the high quotas. How do you justify this proposal, or do you believe further change is needed? Mrs CARBINES — Thank you, Michael, that is a good question. We have accepted one of the models put forward by the constitutional commission, which would, as I have already said, divide Victoria into eight electorates, electing five people each. This would require a quota of just under 17 per cent. There is some concern, I suppose, that that is a relatively high quota. I think we heard Dr Costar say that that is more than is required to get into the Senate. I believe it would still allow for Independents to be elected. High-profile Independents running on

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 18 very localised issues would be able to achieve that quota — Mr Ingram said he thought he would be able to achieve that quota. I think there is sufficient support for minor parties. There is growing support for minor parties. We have seen the growth of the Greens across the nation. I do not think they would have any trouble reaching that quota in certain electorates. Other electorates would see other people supporting different issues reflective of their electorates being elected. I do not think 17 per cent is such a high quota that you will not get people other than members of the major parties elected. The CHAIR — Delegates, I need to advise that Dr Dean has to go to a shadow cabinet meeting shortly. Could I ask only delegates who might have one last question for Dr Dean to stand on this occasion? Mr FOSTER (Croydon Secondary College) — Dr Dean, why does the Liberal Party not support a quota with the state as the electorate? If they support democracy, which I am sure they do, then surely gaining a wider range of views, as provided in the New South Wales upper house and despite the problems there, is certainly the best method. Dr DEAN — Thank you very much, Adam. As I said before, we do support changes to the upper house and we do support a system that would enable minority parties or groups to have a larger say. The system we do not support is one that not only might but often does throw up a situation where a minority party actually has control of the lower house’s program by way of veto. For example, let’s say we were in Germany right now and there was a very strong swing to the right — and some people say a swing to the right is occurring all over the world. There are neo-Nazi-type parties that have racist policies. Let’s say that such a minority party was able to get sufficient support to get even one or two members in the upper house and the other two parties were equally divided. You would then have the frightening situation of the upper house and the program of the lower house effectively being dictated to by a right-wing neo-Nazi group. That is something that could not be tolerated. Remember, when you are changing the constitution you must assume the worst will happen. The constitution is such an important document that you cannot allow a situation to occur which would be detrimental to or horrific for the people of the community. You have to be incredibly careful to ensure such situations do not arise, and that is why we do not accept the proposal put up by the Labor Party. The CHAIR — Delegates, I ask you to thank Dr Dean, as he has to take his leave now. Miss MAXWELL (Genazzano College) — My question is to Dr Costar. You mentioned in your opening speech the system in Germany between the First and Second World Wars and the fact that it was done by proportional representation and all that sort of stuff. Why do you not support proportional representation in the lower house but in the upper house? Dr COSTAR — Again, what I have been trying to argue today is to encourage you to think outside the square. A couple of people have said ‘in the current system’. My suggestion is that the current system needs to be looked at. Can you just roll back a minute to answer your question. I thought the government was wise to set up the constitutional commission, but I thought it was unwise for it to let it concentrate on only the upper house. What it should have done is review the entire constitution. This document is a mess and the reason it is a mess — and I am not opposed to the fact that it is very easily amended — is that since 1855 it has been amended and amended and amended. While it was consolidated in 1975, it was never really reviewed to bring it up to date. I do not mean that in a negative sense, but to reconcile certain things. For example, reference has been made to the changes that were introduced here in 1984, which more or less prevent the upper house forcing elections by blocking supply. That seemed a big issue at the time. It is no longer much of an issue. Some of the changes that were introduced then have had undesirable consequences. What I am suggesting is that we should look at the whole document and think outside the square. That leads to your question: why can somebody support one system of election in one house and a different one in another? The simple answer is: because I want them to do different things, not the same thing. I know that sounds overly simplistic, but that is the best I can do. Miss SIVA (Westbourne Grammar School) — Mr Ingram, why did the Independents not support the latest bill for the reform of the upper house?

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 19 The CHAIR — I asked him the same question last week. I hope I can understand it better when he explains this time! Mr INGRAM — That is a very good question. As I said, I strongly support parliamentary reform, including upper house reform. It is one of those issues which is too important in my view to be used as a political football. In my view that is basically what was going on last week — it was being used as a political football. We had a number of changes that I wanted to see happen to the bill; one was casual vacancies, particularly for Independent members. The bill allowed casual vacancies for Independent members who passed away during a term to be appointed by a sitting of Parliament. When the voters elect an Independent I do not think they would like to think that the parties could get together and say, ‘We will put this person here in’. The other thing is, it was very obvious from the discussions and vote in here and the public debate that the bill was not going to get passed in its current form. One path in the constitution bill was four -year set dates of election. I see four-year set dates of election as a totally separate issue to the upper house and major constitution reform we are talking about. Four-year fixed dates of election, which would take away the sort of endless speculation we are seeing currently about when the election will be, should be voted on separately. My motion to separate that was defeated by all parties. I said that unless we could get that change and achieve something I was not going to support the final bill; I voted for it at the start of the second reading but not the third reading. Miss TONIN (Albert Park College) — I was wondering if I could ask the Honourable Elaine Carbines a question. Do you agree with the minor party leader who believes that your leader, Steve Bracks, refers to country disadvantaged rural communities such as the Mornington Peninsula? I live on the Mornington Peninsula and they have shops and everything. Why is it that Steve Bracks is not concentrating on the true rural communities which are disadvantaged rather than the non-disadvantaged communities, according to the speaker who mentioned that? Do you agree with his point of view? What will your party do to help the truly disadvantaged rural communities? The CHAIR — There were quite a few questions in there but the central theme was disadvantage. Mrs CARBINES — You will be pleased to know that most rural and regional communities have shops and things like that, and not just the Mornington Peninsula. You must remember that when Mr Baxter gave you his answer he was speaking from his party’s perspective; he was talking about the National Party’s perspective. My response is that the government has had a look at all the models put forward by the constitution commission — it recommended a number of different models in relation to how the state should be divided if proportional representation is brought in. Some models meant that there would be an increase in the number of Legislative Councillors — members of the upper house — to more than the current 44. Some models meant that the electorates would be huge. We have come up with the idea of supporting the model put forward by the constitution commission of eight electorates each electing five representatives. We believe that is the best compromise model for the whole of the state. It gives significant representation across the whole of the state and increases the representation for rural and regional Victoria. You do not have to believe what Mr Baxter said just because he said it; he is saying it from the National Party’s perspective. Obviously we believe this is an appropriate model. It will give adequate, appropriate and effective representation to rural and regional Victorians. I am one of those Victorians; I come from a regional centre; and I believe we will be better represented by this model than we currently are. Mr BERTRAND (Brauer College) — I would like to direct this to Mrs Carbines. In relation to the reform you suggested, which involves combining the current electorates into eight larger electorates, including regional and city electorates, how do you propose that all of the people in these proposed electorates will be represented when they are included in the same electorate as people from quite different situations and regions? Mrs CARBINES — Thank you very much. Under our model where you come from in Warrnambool would be included in the region that would go from Werribee to the South Australian border. Currently you are represented by two people from Western Province, and you would then be represented by five people from the province that went from Werribee to the border. You are asking how people could possibly be represented in such a large electorate. Is that the gist of your question? You would have five members, currently you only have four. Obviously there would be people elected

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 20 from major centres, such as where you are in Warrnambool, and the Western District, and I would expect where I come from in Geelong would return at least one if not two members. I think the representation would increase because you would have more members. Also, importantly, the members would be more reflective of the community that makes up our district. You would find that you would have all sorts of Independents plus minor parties. Maybe someone put up by the farming lobby, for example, would be elected with a substantial quota from our electorate. It is not correct to say that we would also include sections of metropolitan Melbourne in these electorates. When you are thinking of metropolitan Melbourne — the central business district and the suburbs — that is not true. We are talking about the outlying areas. I do not know whether Werribee sees itself as metropolitan Melbourne. The CHAIR — It depends which argument we need to win. Mrs CARBINES — We are talking about the regions of common interest. I would argue that Werribee has a common interest with Geelong and the Western District as well. I think we would be well served by the model, not less well served.

The CHAIR — There is time for two more quick questions. Miss PEART (St Joseph’s College) — To the Honourable Bill Baxter: you said that we need to make the Legislative Council work better under the current rules. My question is: without making significant changes to the current rules, what do you believe should be done in order to make the Council work better? Mr BAXTER — I will just say to Elaine Carbines that I do not think that Werribee and Rainbow in the Mallee have much in common, but they are both in the one electorate under her proposal. It is a good question on a number of levels. As I said in my remarks, I think the current members need to spend more time in the chamber. They need to return it to what it should be — the people’s forum for an exchange of ideas. We are getting far too many set speeches and far too few people in the chamber listening to the ideas. You often hear that politicians are dominated by the party machine; they are told how to vote. That is rubbish, we are all part of the system. I have had my mind changed several times since I have been a member over the years by hearing a very powerful contribution from a member of another party. We seem to have lost that. I think we should get that back, it requires a commitment on behalf of us all. I know Miss Carbines objects to my interjecting in the house. If you are going to get a to-and-fro exchange of ideas and some testing of ideas, you have to have reasonable interjections. You cannot just have people coming in and reading speeches. For all I know they might have been written by someone else. We have to have this exchange of ideas. I also think we can lift our game on the committees. I freely acknowledge that we have not set up enough committees to probe the government. As we have seen on the Jim Reeves affair committee in recent times, we have had too much of government me mbers feeling that they had to protect the government and their ministers at all costs and stymying the work of the committee rather than getting to the truth of the matter. It will require a commitment on behalf of the current members of Parliament to make the system work better. Overall into the future, I am searching for a better model. If you find one today, as I said, I want to hear about it. I just do not think the models which have been tossed around actually take us forward. I think Dr Costar’s analogy of throwing a bomb in the door and seeing what happens is right. As Dr Dean says, the constitution has to cater for the most extreme events. You cannot just amend the constitution and think everything will be lovely because we are all good people; it has to deal with the extreme and unexpected event. That is where we need to be careful as we move forward with change. Miss OZBEK (Westbourne Grammar School) — This question is directed to Mrs Carbines. How can you honestly determine that proportional voting reflects the true wishes of society? Mrs CARBINES — Currently we have a system of preferential voting for the upper house, as we do in the lower house, and we are finding that a significant vote is recorded for candidates from the Democrats, the Greens, from other minor parties and from the Independents, yet none of those people are represented in the upper house. No minor party or Independent has been elected for over 50 years, yet in all the polling Victorians are showing us that they are interested in those parties. Many young people are interested in the Greens or the Democrats and do not want to vote for a major party, yet their voices go unheard in the current system.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 21 The current system will not return a Green, a Democrat or an Independent to the upper house. You may say, ‘Why? How do you know that?’. It has not returned anybody from a minor party or an Independent for over 50 years. It is important that the views of all Victorians are represented in this place, not just the views of those people who vote for the Labor, Liberal or National parties. It is very important if we are to have confidence in the parliamentary process, and in the upper house in particular, that all of us feel we have a say. In answer to your question, proportional representation would give provide a better chance of changing the dynamic in the upper house to make it a much better house of review; to lead to increased debate, which Mr Baxter was talking about, instead of the entrenched party political debate that takes place now;, and would lead to a much more representative parliamentary process. The CHAIR — Can I ask you in the traditional way to thank very much our parliamentary guests this morning. I think you have had a wonderful insight into the creative tension and the dynamic that goes on when we are discussing a very important subject. I would like to call on John Andrews now to make a small announcement to thank our guests. Dr ANDREWS — I think our speakers this morning have provided you with a wonderful introduction to the topic. There have been some very heated and perceptive comments from the people sitting here, and especially from the students out here. Dr Dean also asked me to say how impressed he had been by the quality of the speakers, and I am sure that Bill Baxter would agree that if some of these people move over there, we might have the sort of house you are looking for. Thank you all very much indeed for coming, and hopefully the sparks will continue to fly during the day.

Sitting suspended 11.05 a.m. until 12.30 p.m.

SESSION 2

Feedback session The CHAIR — I will explain quickly how we will handle this feedback session. As you know, there were four questions, although question 3 had three parts to it. I will call on each group to report back on one of those questions, and I will nominate the question I would like each to report back on. I acknowledge the Honourable Bill Baxter, who is with us to hear your feedback on the discussions you have had this morning. I ask group 1 to report back to us for 2 minutes on question 1, which is:

Do you think the upper house of the Victorian Parliament (the Legislative Council) reflects the democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’? Why? Why not? There has been a slight change in plans. Group 1 did not have enough time to talk in detail about question 1, so group 1 is now reporting back, after negotiation with the Chair , on question 3(B).

Group 1 Ms TONIN (Albert Park College) — Question 3B reads:

At present the Legislative Council sits for up to eight years. It should have a term between three and four years, the same as for the Legislative Assembly. The arguments we produced for an eight-year term include: it creates stability; bills take many years to be passed, and some members have a high level of expertise which they can use effectively; it retains continuity; and a totally new Legislative Council can be elected and evaluated after four years. Our argument against an eight-year term is that it is much too long. Our views were based on the fact that if you have an eight-year term a lot of people will basically sit down and do nothing and then in their last two years they will say, ‘Oh no, I’m going to be reviewed in two years so I’d better start working’. What we are saying is that if we have a four-year term people will work more effectively, although with eight-year terms people with a lot of skills who are very motivated and self-managing could actually pass some really good laws or do something really

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 22 good for our state. In a lot of cases, because Parliament is dealing with state matters, it takes a lot more time to pass certain things and a lot more preparation, so having eight-years may be a good thing. One of our other suggestions was that members should have to prove themselves to the state every two years. They should prove what they have done and that they have been working on a regular basis, and they should state what month they started each item and what month they finished it, just to prove to everyone that they have been working. I appreciate your listening to our views. Thank you for that. The CHAIR — I call on the person reporting back for group 2 to talk to us on question 2, which is:

All state parliaments in Australia have two houses, except Queensland. Do you think Victoria should retain the Legislative Council or abolish it? In other words what is the point of having two houses — i.e. a bicameral system?

Group 2 Mr WRIGHT (Bellarine Secondary College) — We think it is important to have two houses because the upper house ensures that the majority rules, and at the same time the lower house allows for minority values to be expressed and included in our legislative process. Having two houses also ensures democracy and provides for a house of review, which prevents governments from passing unpopular laws and provides a system of checks and balances. We also came up with some arguments against having a Legislative Council. We are not entirely convinced it is necessary to have an upper house, and we think it might be a waste of money. We also thought that the upper house may act merely to confuse the legal system. We held a vote to decide whether our group was in favour of retaining an upper house, and we decided we do want to retain it. The CHAIR — Well done for using democratic principles. I call on the representative of group 3 to report back on question 1, which is, ‘Do you think the upper house of the Victorian Parliament reflects the democratic principle of one person, one vote, one value, or why not?’.

Group 3 Miss BUFFHAM -FRIEDRICKSON (Eltham High School) — I have been put on the spot and I am not supposed to be the lead speaker. We did only half the question and could not come up with why we think we believe in one person, one vote, one value. Another group can probably comment on that. We came up with ‘Why not?’ because individuals stick to a party mentality and this does not represent the people and the votes that got them elected. I do not have much else to say because I missed the first part of the question. Mr MORELLO (St Bernard’s College) — People vote for these people to represent us. They are supposed to uphold the one person, one vote, one value mentality and that democratic principle, but the problem is that often they get caught up in the political regime of sticking with the party because they do not want to be scrutinised by their own people. That is the major problem we face. They stick to their party and do not express their own personal views. The CHAIR — I call on the representative of group 4 to report on question 3(A) which essentially revolves around the election of members of Parliament to the Legislative Council and whether that should be a system of proportional representation similar to that used in the Senate.

Group 4 Mr FRAGAPANE (Westbourne Grammar School) — Arguments against supporting a system of proportional representation were that the opposition in government was clearly defined when there was a system of preferential voting, and minorities and Independents are not given undue importance with the legislative agenda, meaning that they did not have the balance of power and could not decide to dictate to the other major parties what was to be passed. Arguments against were that electorates were too large for people standing and this was not justifiable. We thought it was important for each member of Parliament to know the people. Arguments in favour also included that it allows for a wider range of views to be presented, which we thought was important in a house of review, and we

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 23 thought it would be reflected in the bills that were passed. Having proportional representation would clearly define the two houses, which is a priority we came up with often in our discussions. The CHAIR — I call upon the representative of group 5 to report on question 3(C) which revolves around the question of a fixed term for both houses that would mean elections would be held on the same set date every year as happens now in the USA.

Group 5 Miss DAVIS (Mowbray College) — We had a few arguments in favour. One was that it creates stability and the government cannot call an election to its advantage just because it needs one. Arguments against the fixed term were that if there were a deadlock or a constitutional crisis, elections could not be held until a certain date, thereby keeping them in a deadlock. A few people of our group thought it would be good to have a cut-off date, to call an election before a certain date, say, about four years. We had a split with two being for a fixed date and eight against. The CHAIR — I call upon group 6 to report on question 4, which revolves around whether we think the proposed changes to the Victorian constitution are a good idea or not; and what are the reasons for the conclusions.

Group 6 Mr FOSTER (Croydon Secondary College) — The question aske d whether we think it is a good idea to change the Victorian constitution. We believe it is a good idea so that it will increase the use of committees, which seem to be ineffectual in the upper house today. It would provide the purpose of actually being in a house of review to scrutinise the government. Another view put forward related to the opinion expressed by Mr Craig Ingram and suggested a half-and-half method for proportional representation. Our group found that half could be elected normally under the current system and half under proportional representation. We thought that was a good idea. It would support the changes but also act as a trial. The CHAIR — I now call upon group 7 to give us their thoughts on question 2, which talks about whether we should keep — retain — or abolish the upper house.

Group 7 Miss WHITMORE (Penola Catholic College) — We are here to report on question 2, that all state parliaments in Australia except Queensland have two houses, and whether we thought it should be a bic ameral system. As a result of discussion we pretty well had an absolute majority with only one person not agreeing with us, thinking that the Council should remain but should be reformed. It is a good point to have it as a checking reference for the Legislative Assembly, and it keeps the power in balance. It creates less of a dictatorship within the power of the legislature. The CHAIR — I ask group 8 to report on question 4.

Group 8 Mr BARNES (Oberon High School) — On question 4 our group decided that it should not be abolished but changes needed to be made to make it more effective as a house of review. It needs to be concerned about electoral needs and to be able to vote so they do not vote on party lines. They need to be able to represent their electorate more than voting for their party and so that the people’s represented needs are of more value than they are at the moment. The CHAIR — I call on the representative from group 9 to report on question 3(C).

Group 9 Miss De GANS (University High School) — On the arguments for a fixed term we thought it would be less open to manipulation if there were fixed terms. If the government was slightly ahead in the popularity stakes it could call an election whenever it wanted to, and we did not think that was fair.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 24 We thought the situation of variables would not matter, so if something happened to be going a person’s way they could not simply decide to call an election. It is a lot easier for voters if there are fixed terms; for example, if a voter wanted to go on holiday and knew there was not to be an election for six months or a year. It is harder for them to organise to vote when they do not know when an election is to be held. It is also a lot easier for the opposition, which we think is a good thing. It makes it fairer because then the opposition knows when an election is to be held. The arguments against a fixed term included our not wanting it to be an exact term so that if there is a freak accident or a situation gets out of their control, they cannot do anything about it because of the constitution and the legislation. We think the government should have some privileges. Being able to call an election is a major job in the Parliament. We thought the government might need some time to work on campaigns. Even though it undertakes campaigns all the time, we thought they might need some extra time to work on things. Overall we believe there should not be an actual fixed date, but a variable of about three months rather than a whole year to be able to decide when the election is to be. That is a bit of a compromise between the two. It lets voters set holidays whenever they want, and allows governments to have some privileges, and everyone can be happy.

Group 10 The CHAIR — I call on group 10 to talk about question no. 1 — that is, whether or not they think the upper house reflects the democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’? Miss PEART (St Joseph’s College) — This is a question we did not really cover as extensively as the others, but we all agreed that this notion of ‘one vote, one value’ is currently being fulfilled because of the preferential voting system and because this voting system is being used in the Legislative Council. We all came to the same decision on this issue. The CHAIR — We will now take a couple of minutes to allow delegates to raise matters that have not already been canvassed. I will be quite strict; it has to be a matter that has not been canvassed.

Mr MORELLO (St Bernard’s College) — Can I get clarification of something? The CHAIR — I think so. See how you go and I will listen. Mr MORELLO (St Bernard’s College) — Our group was confused. If it was reformed and Mrs Carbines’s idea of reform came into effect, who says that because the rural areas get representatives in the upper house they are not going to be biased anyway? How do they know all Labor or all Liberal people will be able to get in? Mrs Carbines says it will be easier for the Independents to get in. Isn’t it going to be easier if they have the chances? Can we ha ve some clarification, because we did not understand how that will make it easier for the Independents. The CHAIR — My understanding is that it is to do with the number of votes, the quota that is required to get a person over the line. With five-member constituencies in the upper house the number of votes, or the percentage of the vote that you need, is less than if you were in a two-member constituency. So theoretically it means people with less than 30 or 40 per cent, as with major party support, are more likely to be elected. It is the same situation in the Senate, where the same principle applies, and you end up with a greater diversity just because of the numbers, because of the reduced quota. A lot of politics works on the numbers. Mr FOSTER (Croydon Secondary College) — Why does the government want to remove the power to block supply from the upper house? I was under the impression they had the power to block supply, as they did back in 1952. Mr BAXTER — It is true that in previous times the upper house had an almost absolute power to block supply, and that lasted until 1952. In 1984 some amendments made during the term of the Cain government made it much more difficult for the upper house to block supply. There has to be a bill; they have to go through a lot more steps. There has not been any suggestion for a long while that an upper house would block supply, but there is still an ultimate sanction there at the moment, albeit it is constrained by the amendments made to the constitution in 1984. I am not sure that there is an understanding around the room of the meaning of ‘one vote, one value’. One vote, one value means the same number of electors in each electorate, because previously, prior to about 1960, we used to

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 25 have lesser numbers of electors in country electorates. Although they were bigger geographical areas, they had less people. So a vote in Wangaratta carried more weight than perhaps a vote in Carlton. So one vote, one value means you have the same number of voters in each electorate. The CHAIR — I am keen that delegates have something pleasant to eat for lunch, so this will be the last question. Miss BUFFHAM -FRIEDRICKSON (Eltham High School) — I think our group is in the same situation as probably a lot of others. Some people are saying they want the voting to be the same as the Senate. Can you explain the voting and how the Senate is elected? Could you just give a brief outline? I know it is done by percentages, but we were very confused about it. The CHAIR — Those who are confused can grab either Mr Baxter or me during lunch. It is not something easily explained. I turned 44 last week and it is probably only in the last eight or nine years that I have understood it properly.

Sitting suspended 12.53 p.m. until 3.00 p.m.

SESSION 4 The CHAIR — Brad Daffy will now speak about the national convention. National convention Mr DAFFY — I can relate to what John said, that he has been to many of the state conventions. John is retiring this year — although I am not sure I should be telling everyone. He has made a great contribution and has worked so hard with the national convention. We were always getting emails, letters and so on so we knew exactly what would happen when we got there. I am sure he will be greatly missed. My name is Brad Daffy, and I am a year 10 student at Brauer College in Warrnambool. I, as well as three others in this room, attended the National Schools Constitutional Convention held in Canberra from 20–22 March. We like to affectionately call it the Con Con. On the first day we had lunch at Old Parliament House in the Bankbenchers Restaurant. We then walked up the hill to Parliament House. Here we attended question time in the House of Representatives. This was very interesting. Parliamentarians get very violent. There was shouting, pointing, and stamping of feet. I am sure we all thought they were going to jump over the table and attack each other. We were there when the Senator Heffernan affair was at its peak, and somehow discussions could easily turn from trade relations to Senator Heffernan! I am still a little unsure how this happened. After that we attended the proceedings in the Senate, which were a little more sombre — but I have to admit the little act in the House of Reps would have been hard to beat. We were then addressed by Senator Nick Minchin, who hosted an afternoon tea on behalf of the Prime Minister. Many of us were lucky enough to meet our local politicians. Government House was our next stop. We were addressed by His Excellency the Governor-General and were introduced to Mrs Hollingsworth and, of course, the family dog. Nicole, one of the more clumsy Victorian delegates, spilt water over the immaculate carpet, so we had to stand over that to disguise it, like any good friend would! We really did not want to be sent home this early in the convention. The Governor-General invited us to look around his house. We really wanted to ask whether we could move in. That night we had dinner at the National Press Club, at which we were addressed by Simon Corbell, the Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services in the ACT. Day two was the start of more formal proceedings. The issue for that day was: should Aboriginal rights be spelt out in the constitution? Senator Aiden Ridgeway from the Democrats, Senator Marise Payne from the Liberal Party and Tanya Plibersek, MHR, from the ALP presented their thoughts on the issue. We were then separated into working groups, in which we got to meet many people from all around Australia. There were many different ideas from many different people. That evening we attended a formal dinner at Old Parliament House, at which we were addressed by Scott Hocknull, the 2002 Young Australian of the Year. We were all inspired by his speech.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 26 Day three was our final day. We really did not want to go home. The topic for today was: human rights: should the constitution require Australian governments to comply with international treaties, once Australia is party to them? Professor Cheryl Saunders from the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies; Mr Tjaart Steyn, from the South African High Commission; and Mr Jack Waterford, the editor in chief of the Canberra Times, all told us of their feelings on the issue. At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings, the Honourable Senator Margaret Reid, the President of the Senate, addressed the convention and received our communiqué. She then presented this to the Senate and it has been incorporated into Hansard. I really never thought I would be lucky enough to be selected to attend this convention. To be one of 25 Victorians selected to attend was a great honour. I met 160 students from all around Australia, who I would never usually get the chance to meet. Everyone forged many new friendships — I know I did. I still keep in contact with many of the delegates. All air fares, meals and accommodation costs were covered by the commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. It was a great experience to go to the convention, and I would encourage everyone here to put in an application. But just make sure you leave a spot for me, because I want to go again! The CHAIR — I thank Brad for his wonderful presentation; that was outstanding. I add my encouragement to John’s and Brad’s. Don’t think you can’t make it. The odds are phenomenally good, and you are phenomenally good. This is the third state constitutional convention that I have chaired and — I do not know whether it was the subject, but I suspect it was you — the contributions were absolutely outstanding, and you deserve to be heard on a much wider stage. So make sure those applications go in.

Official closing The CHAIR — Now I introduce the Honourable Phil Honeywood. Phil is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the shadow Minister for Education. He has kindly agreed to conclude the convention for us today. Mr HONEYWOOD — Good afternoon. I think this is also the third state constitutional convention I have addressed. It is great to see members of Parliament from every party participating, whether it be Mary Gillett from the Labor Party, Bill Baxter from the National Party, or me representing Rob Doyle, the Leader of the Liberal Party. I guess by the end of today your heads are full of ideas swimming around and you are thinking that it has been a fantastic event in terms of interest and what you have learnt. But I think the most important thing about what you have done today is that you have come together not just from different parts of Victoria but from different school systems. All of my education was in government schools, but my children are being brought up in Catholic schools and my wife teaches at an Anglican girls school, Tintern. From my personal background, I get the variety of life that goes on in the different education systems. But I think you would all agree that too often there are too many barriers in certain towns and communities between students of government schools, students of Catholic schools and those at independent schools, and those barriers should be broken down where they exist. In many communities they do not exist. Many communities have VET subjects and so on where they share across the different schools, but we know that in some communities those barriers are there, and they are not healthy. Events like today are a really good way of bringing it all together. Of the things that you have achieved from today, one would be building up your teamwork and getting an idea of what other young people are motivated by in terms of their views. Can I recommend to each of you that, just as you have heard about going up to Canberra for the wonderful national conference, in your age group you should really be thinking about having a year, six months, or even a couple of months overseas in another country. Have any of you had that Rotary exchange or Lions Club experience? Good, a number of you. At the end of year 12 at my local government high school, when I was 17 years of age, I found myself on a plane to Tokyo, Japan. I knew one word of Japanese — ‘konnichiwa’, which I got wrong. I arrived at 7 o’clock in the morning to meet my first host family; I had four host families, each for three months, in Tokyo. The CHAIR — Could I just ask the lady in the gallery who has just taken that mobile phone call to leave the gallery, if you are still on the phone. I ask members of the gallery and de legates, if they have mobile phones, to turn them off. It is very important to respect our young delegates here today. They are as important as members of Parliament. Mr HONEYWOOD — Thanks, Mary; it’s the only hanging offence we have in this place!

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 27 There I was in Tokyo, Japan — a totally different culture. My host parents did not have any children, but they had a pet budgerigar that spoke Japanese, so that was a consolation. I can see a gentleman there from Warrandyte High School, and I think I have said this to him before: I attest to being the only foreigner that has been taught Japanese by a budgerigar! But at the end of my year abroad that exchange experience gave me three things. One was the ability to learn another language and culture, which is always a good thing. The second was that I was able to really develop my self-confidence. I had been in the school debating team. We had some great debating topics like: Pandora’s box should never have been opened; the place for knockers is outside the door; and, my old-time favourite, sacred cows make the best hamburgers. That trained me to think on my feet and think through different concepts. What that year abroad gave me was the ability to compare and contrast my own country, Australia, and look at the good things about the country I come from and the things I would like to change for the better, and comparing against an Asian culture was quite a good benchmark to have. The third thing I learnt overall about what we have going for us as a nation — and we have a great health system and a great education system — and the one thing I came home with was that in this country, Australia, it does not matter whether you want to be a plumber, doctor, lawyer or carpenter, like my father was, so long as you have pride in your career of choice and pride in being the best plumber or the best lawyer, or the best whatever, you will be respected in this country for the person that you are. I have been to many countries, and I should not mention the one where I was an exchange student in particular, where unless you have money, unless you come from a certain social class, or unless you have a particular career, such as being a businessperson — in those countries a businessman, rather than a businesswoman — you will not be respected for the person that you are. That is something in Australia we should really hang onto very strongly. I think there is a danger from my parents’ generation, in that they have all encouraged us to take desk jobs and to be good office workers. There is a real danger that Australia will become like countries I have been to, such as Britain and France, which rely on a largely black underclass of migrants from Africa, India and Pakistan to do all the menial jobs because they do not respect somebody who is good with their hands or good with a trade skill. That is a balance we have to hang onto if we are to retain our egalitarian culture. That really has meant that Australia has been able to lead the world and, importantly, ensure that our young people can go anywhere in the world and do well. My youngest brother followed in my footsteps as an exchange student to Japan. He has now worked for 11 years for a company called Nintendo in Tokyo designing computer games, and he travels all over the world. All he did was go to the same government school that I went to, and he went on to do a computer science degree with Japanese at Sydney University, and then off he went to Japan and has worked for Nintendo ever since. We have probably lost him for some years, but I am sure that like all good Australians he will come back, having had a world-class education here in Australia. I have read your communiqué and I know what your main topic has been today: upper house reform. My quick comment there is that when I was growing up as a teenager I noticed one very important problem that occurred in a place called Queensland to our north. Queensland was the only state that did not have an upper house and there was a government there called the Bjelke-Petersen government. Unfortunately, because they — and it is no reflection at all on the party in government at the time — were able to change laws overnight, things happened that should not have happened. There was a major historic hotel in Brisbane which was an icon for that city. It was a very beautiful heritage building — and, of course, Brisbane does not have many heritage buildings compared with Melbourne. Unfortunately, a law was passed pretty well overnight — the Governor’s signature was given that night — to knock down that hotel, and the bulldozers were there waiting at midnight to effect that demolition before people were able to lobby to ensure that that law was not changed. If you do not have an upper house the very least you need is a very strong committee system to provide a check and balance on legislation. I can tell you now — and Mr Baxter will certainly tell you — that there are many times when legislation goes through here in the lower house — where Mary Gillett and I are both members — that really has not been perhaps thought through as comprehensively as it could have been, and mistakes can be made that need to be fixed up between the houses, between it going from the lower house to the upper house. That period of time we have to think through the full implications and to have every lobby group get to know what that new law or that change to the law can mean goes for good democracy. All I say is that if you throw out that upper house component, whatever you do, make sure there is some other check and balance in the system because we can finish up with heritage buildings being demolished or some pretty silly laws that become just good work for

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 28 lawyers, that pay lawyers’ wages because of too many loopholes being left in them without enough chance for consideration. Having said that, I am sure many of you thought having an upper house just means having more politicians. One of the other great things about Australian culture is that politicians in this country have to realise that unless they listen to what people say they do not last for long. So any attempt to try to reduce the number of politicians is probably reflecting Australians’ views on life! I am sure the debate was informed and that you got to think about ideas you had not really had the chance to really think through and debate before. Most importantly, you have made some good friends, you have got to know how other people think, and I am sure this will be a launch pad for many of you to go on, whether it be as an exchange student or on to debating or public speaking, and we will probably seen many of you back in here in some years to come. Dr ANDREWS — First of all, to the Parliament of Victoria and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council, thank you very much indeed for the use of this wonderful chamber and your facilities. I think it is absolutely critical that we use a place like the people’s house to discuss issues which affect the future directions of our democracy. So thank you to the Parliament of Victoria. I would also like to thank the members of the state planning committee: Karen Dowling, Jennie Toyne, Gerard Broadfoot from the Catholic Education Office, and Rod Espie, who have done an enormous amount of the organisation for today. A group of people organise the regional conventions; and we organise the state convention and we are the people who will select the delegates to go to the national convention. When you get in, we are expecting the cheque will be in the mail; if you do not get in, please do not communicate with us on a negative basis. The other people who are absolutely central to the fact that you are here are the teachers who have brought you here today — the teachers who have run the regional conventions throughout Victoria. There have been 15 or 16 this year and about 1300 students have attended those events and from those obviously the people have come here today. The teachers who run the regional conventions do an enormous amount of work. A day like this one at your school does not suddenly happen because someone in your school thinks it is a good idea to do it and invites other schools. If I said they probably spent one or two weeks — about 80 to 100 hours — I think it would be an underestimate of the time it takes to organise a day like today. So thank you very much indeed to the teachers in your host schools. You have been an absolutely wonderful convention of delegates. You should go home feeling very pleased with your contributions, the quality of the debate and also the way you have represented yourselves and your schools. So, well done and safe home. Thank you. Finally, how could we leave without thanking the linchpin of the convention, the lady who makes sure that we all have not only a great day but get treated so fairly that the day runs smoothly and we all gain just so much from it? Would you please thank Mary Gillett.

Convention adjourned 3.25 p.m.

14 October 2002 State Constitutional Convention 29