QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 431

Wednesday, 20 March 1991

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - Does the Premier accept that it is a fundamental principle of the Westminster system that Ministers must accept responsibility for their actions and also for their departmental officers?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - This is a matter that has often been broadly discussed in this place. In my view Ministers take responsibility for their portfolios. Ministers are not always able to know everything that departmental officers do, but I believe if there is any difficulty with departmental officers two issues arise: the first is the principle of accountability to the community; the second concerns loyalty to officers which means Ministers owe them careful investigation of the circumstances but, where there is need for action, they act. I hope the Leader of the Opposition also has the same views for his own staff that I have just expressed.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - Will the Premier give the House an undertaking that she will dismiss any Minister involved in unlawful expenditure without Parliamentary authority and who refuses to resign?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - To fling that kind of issue around the House as though there may be something behind it is a very serious way to use this House. It is a hypothetical question. If there is a matter which members of this opposition want to put on the table let them put it on the table and we will deal with it.

AMECON FRIGATE PROJECT Mr FORDHAM (Footscray) - I also ask a question of the Premier. Will the Premier inform the House of the progress of the implementation of the AMECON frigate project and of the benefits that this ongoing project is providing for Victoria's economic and industrial development? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

432 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - AMECON is one of the success stories of manufacturing industry in Victoria. From being a company that, when it was the Naval Dockyards, was in total disarray with a legion of stories about how bad and unproductive it was, AMECON is now a prize example across Australia and indeed the world of how a small country can have a first-class centre of excellence in shipbuilding. That was not easily done. It required careful targets, careful planning and cooperation. That was assisted, of course, by AMECON winning, because of the quality of its bid, the contract for the frigates. I am very pleased to say that not only is the frigate contract timetable being met on time, but at the moment it is being met ahead of time. Not only is it being met ahead of time and therefore increasing employment in the western suburbs but, through the contracts to other suppliers throughout Victoria, it is also increasing investment in Victoria and job opportunities through that contract of $1.25 billion.

It is expected that Victorian companies, including AMECON, will eventually be awarded work worth $1.4 billion to $1.65 billion. That is, more than $1 billion is being generated to other industries by AMECON successfully winning the frigate contract.

The contracts awarded to Victorian companies from the larger contract are expected to be worth $200 million to $230 million in hull structure; from $50 million to $70 million in propulsion plants, and $120 million in electronic plants. Cities like Ballarat are benefiting by up to $25 million. At the moment central Victoria, including Bendigo, is benefiting by up to $190 million. Inner Melbourne is benefiting by up to $140 million.

During the peak construction period 3000 jobs will be generated at AMECON between 1993 and the year 2000. One hundred and seventy new jobs will be created this financial year alone, which, of course, goes against the trend in the manufacturing industry. This would not have been possible if the kind of industrial policy that this government has was not put in place at AMECON. It was not a policy of division, the division of the opposition; it was a policy of setting a clear target, getting the industry and the union to work together on reducing the number of unions from twelve to four, which was no mean feat and in which both industry and unions played a leadership role and then, of course, the government picked up its real responsibility in this area and injected $7.2 million into the innovative Marine Engineering Training and Research Centre that I will have the pleasure of opening in Williamstown on Friday.

As well as that, the capacity for further injection of knowledge into all manufacturing industry has been generated by agreements on technology transfer with German companies. We also now have the agreement of Mr John White, the first-class Managing Director of AMECON, to join the government's Manufacturing Industry Council.

That is the kind of policy, and that is the kind of implementation that our government has in contrast to the opposition, which still does not have an industry policy, but has the hide to be critical of those who have. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 433

BAN ON POLITICAL ADVERTISING Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - J direct my question to the Premier and I ask: what action has the government taken to support the Federal government's proposed ban on political advertising, or will the government join with the opposition in defending the right of freedom of speech? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Isn't it fascinating? The honourable member for Brighton is suddenly the defender of freedom of speech in Victoria - the very same person who used this House to attack Mr Bill Gurry, a respected financial person in this State, and who did not have the courage to repeat it outside the House! It would seem the honourable member is now the subject of appropriate action in that regard. What a farce! Mr Brown interjected. Ms KIRNER - The Leader of the Opposition says that I have already made a judgment on the case. I have made no judgment. I do not judge people or use this House to make statements which judge people. The honourable member for Brighton is clearly upset about this matter, and well he might be. The opposition has never had the slightest interest in freedom of speech being properly used either in Parliament or outside. The position taken by the Federal government is reasonable. There is no guarantee of freedom of speech when those who can afford it are the ones who have big dollars to pay for it. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PANELS Mr SHELL (Geelong) - Will the Minister for Police and Emergency Services explain to the House the progress of the steps he is taking to introduce community justice panels? Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this important area. My department has been engaged with the Aboriginal community and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Cooperative Ltd in introducing a unique program to keep Aboriginal people out of prison and therefore out of the dangers that accompany Aboriginal imprisonment. In many ways the often simple solutions or the old-time remedies are the best. We have gone back to the system used by Aboriginal people in the past. It is a return to the days when the community in general and the elders in particular took responsibility for Aboriginal people and the problems of individual members. The concept of Aboriginal community justice panels was put forward by the Aboriginal community and the legal service during discussions on the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. The government has endorsed the project as it was then formulated as a way of addressing the problems highlighted by the Royal Commission in an effort to reduce the levels of imprisonment of Aboriginal people. In the past few days I have announced that we are moving away from funding the Aboriginal legal service to providing direct funding to community panels. We believe that is an important extension of a significant program. Elsewhere I have mentioned my 77597/91-1S QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

434 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 20 March 1991 support for diversion programs. I believe this is a significant crime prevention program and it will be significant in reducing deaths in custody. I suspect other States will also take it up. Community justice panels rely on volunteers who are willing to work with the community and members of the criminal justice system, especially the judiciary and the police. They will ensure the welfare of their community members is paramount. When a Koori is brought into a police station, members of the local panel will be called in and will take the offender either home or to a sobering up centre; in other words, they will take responsibility for that Aboriginal person. In addition panels will also assist with providing advice to the judiciary - an important aspect of the program. Some positive aspects have already been covered such as the refurbishment of the Echuca courthouse which has been turned into a major tourist attraction and a Koori cultural centre. I believe there is bipartisan support for this program because of its importance although we had great difficulty finding out who was the opposition spokesperson. It turns out to be the honourable member for Forest Hill who, I am pleased to say, has come into the House. If he is not aware of this important initiative, I should be more than happy to provide a briefing because it is significant that to date the opposition has had no policies on Aboriginal people. It has been silent in providing anything on this most significant area. In fact, the only thing that has happened has been a division within the coalition. We have received support for these sorts of programs from the honourable members for Swan Hill and Warrnambool but we have received opposition to programs for Aboriginal people from people such as the honourable member for Mildura who is well known for his antagonism towards programs for Aboriginal people. It is an extremely significant and important area and should receive bipartisan support. NO-STRIKE AGREEMENTS Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I refer the Premier to the no-strike agreement negotiated in respect of Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games and ask whether the multimillion dollar Altona expansion program, deferred earlier by the Hoechst dispute and now likely to proceed along with other major projects, will be offered a similar no-strike agreement by her government. Ms KIRNER (Premier) - It is pleasing indeed to hear the question and the obvious interest of the honourable member for Hawthorn in the important matter of the redevelopment of the petrochemical complex in Altona, which is situated in the important electorates of Williamstown and Werribee! Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and I have also met from time to time with representatives of other parts of the industry who meet as the Altona petrochemical complex group. There is no doubt that potential investments worth millions of dollars are needed to upgrade the refineries. As I said QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 435

some months ago, they must be upgraded from an environmental point of view so that they can continue to exist in harmony with the community. I congratulate Mobil on the new agreement on the environment it has reached with the local community. Planning and transport issues must also be solved as well as the most important matter of industrial peace and agreement so that the investment can proceed.

Members of the Mobil delegation requested the government to set up a one-stop shop project team to address the issues. They also assured me that they were delighted with the progress they had made with the unions and were almost at the point of reaching agreement about industrial matters related to the investment. They said if the government sets up a one-stop shop project team - I am pleased to do so under the. responsibility of the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development - I hope all systems will be go when in a couple of weeks the chief general manager goes to the United States of America, hopefully to seal the investment.

Not only have I been afforded the pleasure today of speaking about AMECON Ltd as a progressive industry in the western suburbs and as a model for the future development of industry in Victoria but, in answer to the question from the honourable mem~r for Hawthorn, I have also had the opportunity of outlining the fact that it is possible - one would not want to say certain because various agreements must be reached and Mobil is an international company - that, if the AMECON pattern is followed, Victoria could have a billion dollar investment over the next decade. That would have to bring a smile to the face of any Premier. EDITING OF GOVERNMENT SUBMISSIONS Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - Will the Premier give an undertaking that in future union officials, such as Mr Curran, will not be given a privileged right to doctor government submissions and that relevant industrial organisations and community groups will be properly and honestly consulted about major factors affecting their industry?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The question was slightly askew, as the glasses were, I am afraid. I did go through the answers to those questions yesterday. It is most unfortunate that the honourable member who asked the question today, and who has been pursuing an attack on my integrity fairly nervously in the press without raising the matter, as would be appropriate, with you, Mr Speaker, is asking this question today when he received the answers in absentia yesterday.

I would have thought that the very least responsibility of a Deputy Leader of the National Party was not to dine out in the House on the morning headlines, but at least to check Hansard.

On the matter of consultation I should be pleased to continue consulting on any major issue with all major parties. As I outlined yesterday - and I hope the Deputy Leader of the National Party does read Hansard - our record is much better than anything the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

436 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 opposition can produce. It has to hold a special meeting with employers to find out what the employers' views are. WATER RATES IN WIMMERA-MALLEE REGION Mr F. P. SHEEHAN (Ballarat South) - Will the Minister for Conservation and Environment advise the House of steps he has taken to provide relief for fanners in the Mallee-Wimmera area, particularly with regard to water bills that are due by 15 April?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I thank the honourable member for his question and for the issues he has brought to my attention over recent weeks with regard to the concerns of the farmers in the Wimmera-Mallee region of Victoria.

As honourable members will be aware the Rural Water Commission has been involved in pursuing cost recovery over a twenty-year period. There is little argument about the appropriateness - not just here but around Australia - of achieving full cost recovery in these areas.However, there is an extraordinary amount of disagreement about how full cost recovery is calculated.

The commission's current program has produced an increase in water prices for the Wimmera - Mallee of 2 per cent above the consumer price index this year. It started off in 1985 when the government wrote off $350 million in loans that had been paid to the commission over a long period by conferring it to equity, and even five years into that program this year's Budget Papers show $34 million of money transferred from general taxpayers' funds to the Rural Water Commission.

Some part of that amount is for general community purposes such as environmental issues or salinity and so on, but still the accountants tell me that $22 million of that amount is a subsidy to irrigation, stock and domestic users.

I have had several discussions with people concerned about this issue and last week a deputation from the Victorian Farmers Federation met with me. Genuine concerns are held by the fanning community with regard to this policy and program.Consequently I have taken a number of steps.

Firstly, today I have asked the Auditor-General to provide me with advice on the continued appropriateness of using current cost depreciation as the accounting methodology for calculating these prices, and given the Auditor-General has just completed an audit of the commission, that is the most appropriate way to obtain advice on the subject.

Secondly, I have directed the commission to involve its advisory committees in the commission's capital programs each year. The fanners put forward the view, not unreasonably, that if they will be asked to pay for the costs of running the commission then they also have to say on what their money is being spent to ensure that we do not have engineers building rather larger facilities than are necessary. QUEsTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 437

The appropriate way to deal with it is to use the extensive network of advisory committees that already exist in the Rural Water Commission areas to ensure that its money is being spent wisely, and that no more is being spent than needs to be spent.

Thirdly I have decided to appoint an independent firm of accountants to investigate and report on an appropriate system for ensuring that each of the separate segments of the Rural Water Commission's businesses pay their way and no more.

There is concern particularly among the farmers of the Wimmera-Mallee that they are being used to subsidise other areas of Rural Water Commission activity. The farmers feel they are paying more than their share compared with segments of the business community and it is appropriate that this question be looked at so that the way the accounts are prepared and prices are calculated is not only equitable but is seen to be equitable by all the people paying the money.

Finally, in respect of the Wimmera-Mallee system, there is a particular case within the Rural Water Commission where, after a period of negotiation and discussion with farmers in the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic water supply system, a new system of calculating prices for next year has been arrived at. Rather than paying a price per hectare, as they have done so far, there will be a lesser amount per hectare plus an amount for dam fills, which is moving towards a volumetric charge. That will mean that next year some farmers will pay a lesser bill for their water than they will this year. It is not unreasonably put by them that it is a little daft to put up their bills this year and reduce them the following year. Consequently, we have allowed any Wimmera-Mallee farmer whose bill will be down next year to defer payment of the increase this year without adding any interest to it. In order to enable negotiations to goon with individual farmers, the payment date will be extended from 15 April to 31 May.

The package has addressed all the genuine concerns of the fanning community. The aggregate water bill will increase progressively and will go up over the fifteen-year period over which the subsidy will be phased out.

SHOP TRADING HOURS Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - I ask the Premier: will the government adopt the coalition policy for shop trading in the central Melbourne area --

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister for Transport!

Mr MACLELLAN - Will the Premier introduce legislation to allow seven-day-a-week trading in the Melbourne central business district to stimulate economic activity, or will she allow Mr Halfpenny and the Trades Hall Council to dictate government policy on this issue? PETmONS

438 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I think I heard the words that the opposition has a policy. In the whole time I have been Premier, I think this is the first time I can recall a member of the opposition getting up during question time and asking a question about a so-called policy. I shall be delighted to examine the coalition policy on this issue, particularly as to the definition of boundaries, the definition of what the opposition will do about regional shopping centres, the definition of how it will assist strip shopkeepers, and the views of the employers in the CBO on this issue. I wonder if I could -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Premier does not require the assistance of the honourable member for Mitcham. I ask him to remain silent. Ms KIRNER - I certainly look forward to seeing the opposition's policy on shop trading hours. I am sure the honourable member for Berwick will agree with me and will hand me this policy that he has so carefully developed. Is that available for the government to have a look at? Silence. You mean we have another one-line policy, the one line in Hansard? I read Hansard, unlike the Deputy Leader of the National Party, but I find it a bit of a rough substitute for policy - with no disrespect to Parliament, Mr Speaker. It is true that the government is looking at the issue of shop trading hours - the whole of the policy, not a one liner. It is true that I have met with the various proponents, including the Coles Myer Ltd group and the Oavid Jones Australia Pty Ltd group, who do not have a concerted view, one would have to say. It is true that I have met with the unions. It is also true that when the government releases a policy on shop trading it will be a thorough one. I look forward to the honourable member for Berwick breaking his silence on the opposition's total policy. Currently it is no more than what the honourable member for Burwood, who is missing from the Chamber, had in 1988. I would not be too surprised if the honourable member for Burwood has already gone out to claim, either on 3AW or the new Kennett radio station 3AK, that it was really his idea.

PETITIONS The Clerk - I have received the following petitions for presentation to Parliament: Oak Park railway station To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Pa rliamentassembled. The petition of the local residents in the electorate of Pascoe Vale respectfully requests that there be immediate action taken through the Ministry of Transport to set in motion restoration and repairs to the Oak Park railway station. The residents of the area are annoyed at the unsightly appearance of the station, which has remained as such over a period of twelve months or more. PET mONS

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASS~MBLY 439

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Thomson (1666 signatures)

Swinburne Institute of Technology Mooroolbark campus To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria sheweth: We are greatly concerned that Swinburne Institute of Technology's Mooroolbark campus is in danger of not receiving necessary planning approvals and government support to operate as a tertiary education institution. The Swinburne campus offers the only short-term prospect for residents of the outer-east region of Melbourne to partake of comprehensive tertiary studies on a local basis. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The government of the State of Victoria provide all possible support to ensure that Swinburne Institute of Technology's Mooroolbark campus becomes a viable tertiary education institution. Further that the government of the State of Victoria initiates a comprehensive investigation into the medium to long-term post-secondary and tertiary education requirements of the residents of the outer-east of Melbourne and how these needs may best be provided for. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Honeywood (3217 signatures)

Laid on table.

ECONOMIC AND BUDGET REVIEW COMMITIEE 1989-90 Consolidated Fund $35 million interest swap

Mr CLARK (Balwyn) presented report of Economic and Budget Review Committee on inquiry into issues and implications of 1989-90 Consolidated Fund "$35 million interest swap" transaction, together with minutes of evidence. Laid on tab le.

Ordered that report be printed.

PAPER Laid on tab le by Clerk: Statutory Rule under the Racing Act 1958: SR No. 38. ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2)

440 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2) Introduction and first reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General), by leave, introduced a Bill to amend the Administration and Probate Ac~ the Wills Act, the State Trust Corporation of Victoria Act and for other purposes.

Read first time.

APPROPRIATION MESSAGES Messages read recommending appropriations for: Industrial Relations Bill Equipment (Public Safety) Bill Pay-roll Tax (Superannuation) Bill

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State government contributions to 1996 Olympic bid Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - I desire to make a Ministerial statement. . As honourable members will recall, the Auditor-General's report on Ministerial portfolios of May 1990 contained a suggestion that the Department of Sport and Recreation annual report for the year ended 30 June 1990 should include information as to the value of contributions made in cash and kind by the government of Victoria and its agencies to the 1996 Olympic Games bid. However, because the close-off reporting date for the department's annual report was 30 June 1990, this would have meant the report would have covered costs only until 30 June 1990, whereas government contributions to the bid continued well past that date, the bid itself not being decided until 18 September 1990. I consequently concurred with the view subsequently expressed by the Treasurer that it would be more appropriate to provide Parliament with a Ministerial statement on government contributions to the bid, in lieu of inclusion of an earlier but necessarily incomplete statement in the annual report of my department. Accordingly, in this Ministerial statement I will detail government costs, comprising both the value of cash contributions plus the estimated value of "in kind" assistance directly attributable to supporting the Olympic bid. The period covers both the initial bid to the Australian Olympic Committee in 1988 and the bid to the International Olympic Committee which was decided in September 1990 . These costs amounting to an estimated total of $12 146 853 have now been coUated by my department from MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 441 information received from other government departments and their associated agencies and authorities. Direct cash contributions by the State government to the bid companies for the two bids totalled $9 250 000, while other contributions, mostly of an "in kind" nature made by departments and authorities, are estimated to have amounted to $2 896853, of which the principal forms comprised provision of accommodation for the main bid committee, $1 012 273; research and consultants, $527813; docklands redevelopment planning directly related to the bid, $435 000; sponsors hips, $128 500, and cost of staff working directly on supporting the bids, $548 883. The figure for accommodation includes a notional rent of $595 455 based on the Valuer-General's assessment for office accommodation provided in the old Treasury building for the Melbourne Olympic Candidature Committee Ltd. The source of contributions in kind by departments and their associated agencies and authorities were estimated by them, as set out in the following table, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted; table as fvllaws:

Ministry of Finance 1 on 603 (from the former Department of Property and Services) Premier and Cabinet 474653 Major Projects Unit 435000 Transport 189951 Sport and Recreation 180840 Office of Trade and Investment 184 702 State Bank 100000 Ministry for the Arts 60000 Treasury 59000 Ministry of Education and Training 31815 Conservation and Environment 30337 Labour 17889 Chief Commissioner of Police 13903 Planning and Housing 11 000 Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs 10000 Totalizator Agency Board 8200 Victorian Tourism Commission 5625 Consumer Affairs 4011 State Insurance 2750 Attorney-General 2278 Community Services Victoria 1206 Ministry of Police and Emergency Services 1090 TOTAL 2896 853 Mr TREZISE - With special funding from Treasury, the Department of Sport and Recreation provided the agreed government cash contributions totalling $9.25 million, thus making up the total estimated State government conbibution in cash and kind of $12146853 over the periods of the bid, 1988 through 1990. The details of the government's conbibutions are provided in table A accompanying this statement which I have shown to you, Mr Speaker, and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

442 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 20 March 1991

Leave granted; table A as follows: TABLE A STA TE GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN CASH AND KIND 10 MELBOURNE'S BID FOR mE 1996 OLYMPIC GAMES

PRELIMINARY MAIN OLYMPIC BID MELBOURNE NOMINATION SUB 10TAL 1988-89 1988-89 1988--89 1990-91 10TAL COST $ $ $ $ $ $ Direct Cash Contributions as per State Government Commitment 250,000 1,500,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 9,000,000 9,250,000

Estimated Value of Other assistance by State Departments and Agencies

Accommodation 289,221 578,442 144,610 1,012,273 1,012,273 Staff 179,496 19,759 304,757 44,871 369,387 548,883 Research and Consultants 63,352 306,110 158,351 464,461 527,813 Docklands Redevelop. Planning 435,000 435,000 435,000 Sponsorships 128,500 128,500 128,500 Travel 14,486 50,478 61,611 126,575 126,575 Publicity 93,085 240 93,325 93,325 Official Functions 21,614 21,614 21,614 Miscellaneous Services 2,870 2,870 2,870

Total other Assistance 242,848 323,466 1,920,856 409,683 2,654,005 2,896,853

Total 492,848 1,823,466 6,920,856 2,909,683 11,654,005 12,146,853

Mr TREZISE - Because of certain recent publicity of the reported costs of the government's contribution to the bid and the erroneous picture conveyed, I believe it is necessary to explain the method adopted in arriving at the estimates provided in this statement. Departments and agencies were requested by my department to report on the value of resources of staff time or departmental expenditures which could be directly attributed to supporting the two bids. Of necessity such reports had to be based on assessment and recall of hours committed and apportionment of costs incurred in the normal course of departmental activities. A working group of officers from the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and the Treasury then reviewed the returns from departments and agencies. After further discussions with the initiating MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 443

departments and agencies as well as consultation with officers from the Auditor-General's office, the working group decided to recommend to me the exclusion of certain costs initially reported by agencies. Particular examples of exclusions comprise reported expenditures which further inquiry revealed would have been incurred in any event - for example, expenditure on the then Spoleto Festival, or where capital expenditures were brought forward on account of the bid but would have occurred in course of the next few years - for example, expenditures by the Port of Melbourne Authority in preparing the Docklands site. In total, such items amounted to $5.2 million, and this amount constitutes the difference between the total sum for "in kind" assistance of $2.9 million included in this Ministerial statement, and the larger totals which have recently been reported in the press. Table B accompanying this statement sets out the items excluded and the reasons why. I have shown the table to you, Mr Speaker, and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted; table B as follvws: TABLE B STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REPORTED EXPENDITURES EXCLUDED ON THE GROUNDS THEY WERE NOT DIREcn Y A TTRIBUTABLE TO THE OLYMPIC BID PORT OF MELBOURNE AUrnORITY Capital Expenditure advanced from future programs: -Planning, design and management for relocation of port facilities as part of the proposed Docklands project, including development of new berths at Webb and Appleton docks for relocation of facilities from Victoria Dock $ 2 879 858 - Finance charges on above $164943 $3044801 ROADS CORPORA nON Capital Expenditure Advanced from future programs: Allocation to Melbourne City Council for maintenance and safety work related to asphalt treatment and bridge painting prior to arrival of overseas dignitaries from the International Olympic Committee $1450000 STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION and GAS AND FUEL CORPORAnON OF VICfORIA - Indirect contributions to Spoleto Festival at $350 000 each $ 700 000 Total Reported Expenditures not included $5194801 Mr TREZISE - I have already mentioned that in assessing the level of the "in kind" assistance of $2.9 million, the officers working group liaised with officers from the Auditor-General's office. However, in stating this, I do not claim the "in kind" figures in this report to have been formally subject to and cleared by audit. Indeed, I am advised that the Auditor-General will be providing to Parliament, at a later stage, an examination of the bid expenditures within the context of his report on Ministerial portfolios. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

444 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Nevertheless, the government is satisfied that these overall figures provide an acceptably accurate statement of the measure of support provided by the Victorian government to the Olympic bid, both in direct cash and by way of the estimated "in kind" assistance such as the value of support by staff, and so on, directly attributable to work involved on the two stages of the bid. It should be noted that the costs incurred by the government have occurred over three Budget years -1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91- and the total cost of $12.147 million for both cash and "in kind" assistance averaged $4 048 951 or about 0.037 per cent of the State government's annual Budget in each of the years over that period. I note from newspaper articles that a prominent member of the opposition has criticised the incurring by departments of these "in kind" costs totalling $2 896 853 -- Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I believe there is an imputation against members of the opposition in the remarks just made by the Minister. I ask the Minister either to clarify the remarks by identifying a particular member of the opposition or to withdraw the remarks. The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Minister whether he is able to comment on the point of order. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - I repeat that publicity has been given by the opposition to the substance of the statement just made, so whichever way you want me to clarify the remark it still makes the same point. The SPEAKER - Order! It would be appropriate if the Minister were to identify the source to which he is referring, such as a particular report, or alternatively identify the particular member of Parliament concerned. That would assist the House. Mr TREZISE - I refer to the honourable member for Hawthorn. I note from newspaper articles that criticism has been made of departments incurring those "in kind" costs totalling $2 896853 which, as I have indicated, were incurred over three years. Hence the average annual amount of "in kind" support provided by departments was less than $1 million per annum - about 0.009 per cent of State Budget annual outlays. I ask the opposition what it would have preferred - that departments not cooperate in supporting the bid? I am sure fair-minded members on both sides of the House agree that the bid made by the Melbourne Olympic Candidature Committee for the 1996 games was an excellent one. I know the Leader of the Opposition, who went to Tokyo for the final presentation to the IOC, would agree with that. Furthermore, given the enormous financial, economic, sporting and cultural pay-off which would have occurred for Melbourne and Victoria had the bid been successful, the relatively small amount invested by the State government on behalf of all Victorians was well worthwhile and it ill behoves the opposition to try to make political capital out of it now. Let us not forget that when the opposition was in government it made a bid, unsuccessful as it was, for the 1988 Olympic Games for Melbourne. That bid did not MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 Mart:h 1991 ASSEMBLY 445 proceed because of the last-minute withdrawal of the support of its Commonwealth colleagues. In comparative cost terms that bid for the 1988 Olympics was more than double in dollar terms this government's bid up to the same stage. Incidentally, that government never recognised the importance of Parliament by making a statement on the bid, as I am providing today. The bid for 1988 under the Liberal government was not successful, but at least that government saw the value for Victoria, as this government did, of bidding for an Olympic Games in Melbourne. Even though the bid for 1996 did not succeed, the process of bidding itself stimulated the acceleration of capital improvements which will be of long-term economic and social benefi t to Victoria and will enhance Melbourne's prospects of attracting major international sporting events in the future. In addition, the government has been able to harness the cooperative spirit between the public and private sectors which characterised Melbourne's Olympic bid by establishing a Major Events Committee which has the charter of bringing national and international sporting and cultural events to this State. Indeed recently the Premier has announced early successes of that committee which include the 1992 World Cup Series cricket final, the International Air Show at Avalon, also in 1992, and the 1995 World Police and Fire Games. The air show is estimated to generate a $50 million net economic benefit to Victoria, and the World Police and Fire Games at least $10 million. Furthermore, let us not forget the other positive outcomes of Melbourne's Olympic bid: During that time, the city became brighter, cleaner and generally more attractive for us and for visitors to Melbourne. People learnt to see Melbourne as an international city and I sense there is a greater civic pride because of that. Internationally, Melbourne had media coverage which could not be bought by any tourism promotion campaign we could afford. Television crews and press journalists came to Melbourne especially because we were an Olympic candidate city. They wrote about Melbourne and made TV programs about the city for audiences who might never have been touched by a paid promotional campaign. In international forums, Melbourne has won further publicity. The best examples are the IOC sessions last year in Puerto Rico and in Tokyo where international media ran extensive stories about the attractions of Melbourne. As well as recognising the efforts of the government's own deparbnents and agencies, it is appropriate to express the government's appreciation for the overwhelming support given to the Olympic bid by Victorians in all walks of life. That support ranged from captains of business and civic leaders to workers, athletes, sports associations and clubs, government employees - both State and local government - and the children of our MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

446 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

schools. I dQubt whether the extent and enthusiasm of that support would have been matched by any of the other candidate cities.

The business co~unity was eminently represented by leaders such as John Ralph, Sir Donald Trescowthick, Ron Walker, Max Beck, Peter Oemenger, Brian Quinn, Kevan Gosper and others who all contributed greatly of their time, energy and considerable commercial skills. Mr Pescott - Mr Speaker, this is probably the first time during the presentation of a Ministerial statement that it has been necessary to direct your attention to the state of the House. Quorum formed. Mr TREZISE - Sydney has now declared its nomination for the Olympic Games in the year 2000 and I am sure all Victorians wish that city every success in its bid which, like Melbourne's, is made as the city representing Australia on behalf of all Australians. By leave, I move: That this House takes note of the Ministerial statement. Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) - The opposition parties were strong supporters of the 1996 Olympic Games bid. There is no doubt about that fact. Under the leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition and the previous Leader of the Opposition many statements were made offering that total support from this side of the House. Similarly, this side of the House totally supports the bid from the City of Sydney and the government of New South Wales for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Members of the opposition believe the games are very important and of great value to the community that wins them, and as Australians and Victorians we are in favour of the bid by Sydney. However, because the opposition supported the bid for the 1996 Olympic Games to be held in Melbourne, it does not mean that this government or the people involved in the bid had carte blanche to do what they liked with the money involved, whether it was public money, government. money or contributions from the general public and companies involved. It does not mean that the government should be unaccountable for how that money was spent and how that bid was run. The Ministerial statement does not solve the problem that really exists, that there has not been a proper accounting for or control over what happened with that Olympic bid. The Ministerial statement accounts for only a portion of the money involved; the total cost of the bid was $26 million. Where is the accounting for that $26 million? The Auditor-General of this State should be given access to the books of the company involved, Melbourne Olympic Candidature 1996 Ltd, and be able to account for the public money spent. The Ministerial statement is totally and utterly inadequate because it does not address the real issues involved. It is clear that an analysis of what has happened with the Olympic bid shows that it was a case of spend first and think later. That has occurred throughout the campaign even to MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 447

the point that when Melbourne lost the bid - when it came fourth in Tokyo - the Premier of this State, feeling the euphoria of the event, immediately announced that Melbourne would bid for the Olympic Games to be held in the year 2000. That is another example of the speak first, spend first and think later philosophy that went through the Olympic bid committee. Proper accounting and accountability are needed for the public funds involved; what has been presented in the Ministerial statement is totally inadequate. It does not address the issue and it will not be addressed until there is a proper accounting by the Auditor-General for the full $26 million involved. Despite what the Minister for Sport and Recreation said in his statement about the Auditor-General's report containing a suggestion that the Department of Sport and Recreation should report on this issue, the real reason for this Ministerial statement being made was not comments made by the Auditor-General; it has been made to try to deflect the flak generated by a very effective and alert media in Victoria. On page 2 of the Ministerial statement it says:

Because of certain recent publicity of the reported cost of the government's contribution to the bid and erroneous picture conveyed, I believe it is necessary to explain the method adopted in arriving at the estimates provided in this statement. That is why the Ministerial statement is before the House today, because of the alert media in this State and the effective use of the Freedom of Information Act by the honourable member for Hawthorn in trying to unravel some of the exorbitant expenditure; it is not before the House to address the issue. What is the real issue here? It is accountability for $26 million of public money. How was it spent? Who spent it? Was it spent properly and wisely in trying to achieve the result that was wanted? Those are the questions that need an answer. It was public money that was placed on trust with this company, whether it was government money of $9 million directly and nearly $3 million in kind, or donations from individual people and pensioners right through to large companies. There is no accountability for it. This government stands condemned for not ensuring that the Auditor-General is protecting those people and analysing what went on. I call on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to announce today that the Auditor-General can have access to the books of Melbourne Olympic Candidature 1996 Ltd because one needs to know how the money was spent. Was it spent on extraneous activities or was it spent for the good of the bid overall? It is clear large sums of money are involved. There is some analysis of it in an article in the Herald-Sun of 9 February but, again, the analysis is not complete because of the lack of information and secrecy. There was $5.8 million spent on the principal components of the bid; $4.2 million on lobbying and campaigning activities - I wonder how much of that was spent in gifts for the people who voted on it? One knows from previous reports of lavish gifts being given MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

448 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

to delegates who came to Melbourne, fur coats, trips overseas, all those sorts of things. How much of our public money went in those areas? Is it appropriate? While one may say that it must be done to compete for these important Olympic Games perhaps there should be a detailed report suggesting to the International Olympic Committee that the whole procedure for selecting where the games are held ought to be changed if the current system leads to corruption and gross abuses of public moneys by anybody who is competing for the games. One needs to know where the $4.2 million went on lobbying and campaign activities. One needs to know who had their home upgraded and whether people involved had mirrors inserted into their houses.

The sum of $2.8 million was spent on communications and publications. The opposition knows something about these publications because one area of concern that was raised by Ms Jean Walsh, a fonner head of the media unit, who is now on the government payroll as a consultant, was that $750 000 was used in presenting the bid documents. Ms Walsh was quoted as saying that one or two people might have been driven by a sense of responsibility to read them. She is then quoted as saying, "But I doubt it". So 400 of these books were printed at a cost of $1875 per book, which is about the most expensive book printing task in Australia. One does not know how effective that was.

There needs to be an analysis of not only how the money was spent but how effectively it was spent. A sum of $2.3 million was spent promoting sports in Australia to demonstrate the capacity of Victoria's venues and organisation. The sum of $1.1 million was spent on the promotion of community involvement. Which community groups received money from that? Was that an appropriate way to spend the money or did some particular community groups get good handouts?

These sorts of details need to be analysed by the Auditor-General. A sum of $1.3 million was spent on promotional activities including the half-time spectacular at the Australian Football League grand final in 1989 and $2.8 million was spent on salaries and administration. A large amount of money was spent, a total of about $26 million.

In the Ministerial statement there is some analysis of $12 million but there is nothing about the other $14 million. It shows only where the money came from, not who spent, controlled or authorised it. There is nothing from the Auditor-General about whether it was spent properly and for the good of the bid. In the community today there are questions about donations to political parties and what accountability there should be to the public because of the fear of corruption and influence.

The question of expenditure on the Olympic Games bid is important, yet there is no accounting for the $26 million of public money, be that from donations or $9 million direct from the State government and $2.9 million "in kind". The Auditor-General does not examine the figures. It is about time the problem was solved, and instead of using Ministerial statements as a cover-up because the media is breathing down its neck the government should face its responsibili ties and do something for Victorians. The $26 million expenditure should be properly accounted for. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 449

The opposition has some concerns whether the money was spent properly. An article in a newspaper dated 26 February 1991 refers to unpaid Olympic Games bills: Former Lord Mayor, Winsome McCaughey, sparked a diplomatic incident - after she left the Vienna Hilton without paying a $3800 bill. An Honourable Member - They jail them for that in Queensland. Dr NAPTlDNE - The opposition has concerns about whether the bills have been paid. Was it appropriate that she should stay at the Vienna Hilton and run up a bill of $3886.04 on behalf of the Olympic Games bid? Mr Gude - A sad end to the Minister's career. Dr NAPTlDNE - That is the sort of question that must be asked. Also there is a bill for $16178.50 for meals and accommodation for the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, and a party of three on the Olympic Games bid trip to Barcelona. Mr Maclellan - They must have eaten at the Parliamentary dining room. Dr NAPTIDNE - It is clear there are questions about expenditure that must be asked and answered because that is only the tip of the iceberg. The Ministerial statement says, ''We gave them $9 million" but there is nothing about how it was spent. The Minister also said, ''We gave another $2.9 million in kind plus another $5.2 million to other groups that we brought forward". A lot of money is involved but the statement does not say whether it has been spent properly. Mr Maclellan - Like a continuous Royal visit. Dr NAPTIDNE - The Ministerial statement refers to $2.9 million in kind as expenditure from other government departments. The Auditor-General's report on the Department of Sport and Recreation referred to further government assistance regarding the Olympic Games and it was estimated at that stage that the $2.6 million had blown out to $2.9 million - a 26 per cent overrun. That is typical of the accounting and budgeting that happens under the government, particularly from the Treasurer and the Premier where Budgets are very flexible and dynamic documents, and overruns of 26 per cent or 500 per cent on expenditure for decorating the offices of the Minister for Agriculture are rather normal. A 26 per cent overrun for "in kind" expenditure from other government departments is normal for this government.

What has happened about the Olympic Games bid? It is over. Everyone would have expected that all involved would have been thanked for their contributions, that an analysis of why Melbourne finished fourth and did not win the bid would have been conducted and that proper accounting for the money involved would have been shown by the Auditor-General. I would have expected that people who had been seconded would have been sent on their way back to their previous jobs or, had they been employed for the bid, sent back to the work force. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

450 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

What has the Premier done? They have all been kept there and she has appointed a few more. Now they form the Major Events Committee, which is a lovely refuge for people like Bill Deveney and Ms Jean Walsh to act as consultants. The Major Events Committee has a $1.6 million a year secretariat.

The government is continuing the same process of cover-up because that committee is a private company and limited by guarantee. Despite the money coming from the public purse it is not subject to review by the Auditor-General.

Mr Maclellan - Slush Pty Ltd!

Dr NAPTHINE - It is a slush fund for the Labor Party hacks. We have heard claims about successes. Already the final of the World Cup Cricket Series is coming to Melbourne because this city is the logical place for that final. The major events oommittee did not win the final of that event for Victoria. The police and firemen of Melbourne secured the Police and Firemens World Games.

Mr Tanner - It was three years hard work.

Dr NAPTHINE - Yet Jean Walsh and Bill Deveney take credit for it. I can tell the House that the committee telephoned the Equestrian Federation of Australia and said, "Come for lunch". During lunch the committee representatives said, "What is the biggest event in the equestrian field?" and the federation representative said, "The world equestrian competition". The committee said, ''When can Australia get that?" to which the federation representative said, "I think 1996 or 1997". They said, "We will help you bid for it, all the money you want". The quote from the person involved was, "I can pick up the telephone and get $2 million today from Mr Crabb".

Mr Maclellan ....;....Who said that?

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I was challenged to name people and I named them. An allegation has been made against a Minister and I askthe honourable member to name who said that Mr Crabb could give $2 million. Who said that?

Mr Perrin - It is not a member.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member for Portland whether he is prepared to identify the source of the comment that he has reported to the House.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) - It is an officer of the Major Events Committee.

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - A serious accusation has been made that he could get $2 million for the sport from a government Minister. The individual person should be named because it is a slur against the Minister if that person is not named. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 451

The SPEAKER - Order! There is not an absolute requirement for the honourable member for Portland to identify the source of the information and the name of the person who has provided that information. The House can make its own judgment on the honourable member's statement. Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) - Further, they said the government would underwrite the sponsorship of the event if it came to Australia. They said they would seek outside sponsors but if necessary they would underwrite the event. That is what the Major Events Committee is on about. It is not subject to the Auditor-General's control but is a repository for Labor Party hacks and for people who should have been moved on after the Olympic Games bid concluded. Now it is on its way to involving Victoria in a number of other things in which it should not be involved. I refer to the second paragraph of the Ministerial statement in which reference was made to the government's contributions to the bid and which reveals the inadequacy of the document. The statement is about government contributions and not about public contributions made in trust. Those contributions are not accounted for and government contributions are not accounted for. The fourth paragraph says government contributions are estimated to have amounted to $2 896000, but we do not know how accurate that estimate is. No auditing or accounting has been done on that estimate, which is already 26 per cent over the figure previously indicated by a government document. We do not know how much more will be revealed. Research consultants were paid $500 000 but again we are concerned about the lack of accountability of the Melbourne Olympic bid committee. On page two a table lists the contributions from agencies or authorities. I am concerned and I seek clarification from the Minister about whether this is a full account of what was contributed. I understand the Board of Works contributed $2750 for a flag for the avenue in Flemington Road. This is not listed, yet $2750 was donated by the State Insurance Office for a flag. Is this the full list? I understand also that the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation contributed $53 000 but that contribution is not listed. It is clear when the Minister uses the word "estimated" he uses it advisedly. Mr Cooper - It is shonky! Dr NAPTHINE - It is shonky. The idea was all right but accountability was forgotten because the ideas were so good. It was thought that nobody would worry about the details. I am concerned about the details. The opposition parties are concerned about the details and the Victorian people are concerned about the details. They want proper accountability . I refer the House to table B which shows that $5.2 million of expenditure was not included in the government's contribution of $12 million because they were works that were to be done but were brought forward. However, when programs such as this are MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

452 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 brought forward expenditure on schools, hospitals and roads must be deferred because that extra money has been spent. Some $1.45 million was allocated to the Melbourne City Council for maintenance and safety work related to asphalt treatment and bridge painting prior to the arrival of overseas dignitaries from the International Olympic Committee. That is an extraordinary amount to spend on asphalt work and bridge painting. The table also shows that the State Electricity Commission and the Gas and Fuel Corporation made indirect contributions to the Spoleto Festival - I understood that is now the Melbourne International Festival of the Arts. Mr Cooper - At government direction! Dr NAP'I'IllNE - Yes, at government direction. The contributions of the SEC and the Gas and Fuel Corporation were made to the Melbourne International Festival of the Arts to help attract the Olympic Games. However when one examines the festival's list of contributions one finds that the Gas and Fuel Corporation and the SEC were only two of the many government sponsors, yet we are told in the Ministerial statement about only two. State Bank Victoria contributed to the Melbourne International Festival of the Arts funding. It was a major contributor to the Olympic Games bid with a direct contribution of $100 000. That is aside from the funding that is not reported in table B to the Melbourne International Festival of the Arts. The contributions of the committee for Victoria Growing Together, the Ministry for the Arts, the Board of Works, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the Victorian Tourism Commission are not listed. How much was actually contributed to the Melbourne International Festival of the Arts as part of Melbourne's Olympic bid that is not accounted for in the Ministerial statement? In the brief time I have had to examine the statement I have found these errors and inaccuracies. It is clear that the statement, which was brought about by an alert media, is a cover-up to stop proper investigation and accounting of Melbourne's Olympic Games bid. The statement is shonky and inept. It contains rubbery figures and shows that in just one area there was overexpenditure of 26 per cent. Proper accountability and a thorough analysis should be made. In the cold light of day approximately twelve months down the track it should be realised that we did not win the bid, we did not finish runner up, we did not finish third, but we finished fourth. That is the fact so it is necessary for an analysis of the bid to be made so that we can learn for the next time we want to get the Olympic Games for Melbourne. I hope we do. I hope Sydney will get the Olympic Games and if we make an analysis of our bid we can provide that to the people of Sydney because we need to work together as Australians on the bid. There are those who say our bid was naive. Mr Hamilton - Who was that? MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 453

Dr NAPTI-llNE - Reports from Australian diplomatic posts warned early last year that Melbourne was losing the propaganda campaign in its bid for the games. A senior foreign affairs official said:

(It was) pitched as though to win over the Bendigo C.W.A. according to one diplomat source, the Australian effort in promoting Melbourne centred on naive attempts to sell the city rather than confronting the politics of intemationallobbying. Perhaps we were too innocent. Mr Trezise interjected. Dr NAPTIDNE - I take up the interjection of the Minister. I applaud the effort put in by the people concerned. I applaud them, but we must analyse why Melbourne did not win the Olympic bid. I am sure that, given his expertise in business Mr John Ralph would be the first to admit that in every venture one goes into if one sets a goal and does not achieve it, one needs to analyse why one did not achieve it so one can learn from it and achieve one's goal next time. One cannot pat oneself on the back and say, ''We did a good job. We didn't win, but we'll just sit back rather than learn from that experience". That would be stupid. One cannot do that. We must analyse the bid so we can learn from it for next time and pass on our learned experience to the Sydney people. Most importantly, this Ministerial statement was forced upon the government through freedom of information and an alert and active media, not by any sense of government responsibility.

The Ministerial statement has flaws in it. It is inadequate in that it deals only with the government contributions and does not deal with how the money was spent and whether it was spent properly. It does not deal with the public funding or the accounts of the Melbourne Olympic Candidature 1996 Ltd. It does not tell us that this government is going to be honest and open and let the Auditor-General have a look at that company and all the accounts of the Melbourne Olympic Candidature Committee - which is commonly known as the Olympic bid committee - so that the people of Victoria will know the money has been spent properly.

The Ministerial statement is inadequate and, in fact, represents a cover-up. It is an attempt to divert people's attention from the proper investigations needed. The opposition calls on the Minister and the government to announce today that the Auditor-General will be given the access and authority to conduct a proper and thorough investigation of the accounts of this company.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - One can only be amazed that in his first speech as a shadow Minister the honourable member for Portland decided to see whether he could outdo the honourable member for Brighton in attacking the Victorian business community. Mr Cooper - That's absolute rubbish. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

454 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Mr ROPER - It is obvious that that is the style the honourable member for Portland has decided to adopt because what he was alleging was that there was misspending and inadequacy in the bid. Mr Cooper - And he proved it. Mr ROPER - I take up the interjection from the honourable member for Mornington who says the honourable member for Portland proved there was miss pending and improper spending by the committee. That committee was chaired by John Ralph and, although the honourable member for Portland tried to wriggle out of it towards the end, he spent almost the whole of his speech simply attacking the people who ran the bid and suggesting they would try to hide their expenditures. The reality is that this was a joint exercise between the members of the business community, the Melbourne City Council, community organisations and many others as well. The way in which it was structured was to ensure that all those skills could be put together. But for their trouble all that they get from the honourable member for Portland is an attack suggesting that they have not been honest and open about what they have been doing. What the honourable member for Portland clearly does not understand is that the accounts of Melbourne Olympic Candidature 1996 Ltd will be audited as they have to be. Mr Maclellan - But not by the Auditor-General. Mr ROPER - No, I had not thought that honourable members opposite took the view that the Auditor-General should take over the auditing of private companies! Honourable members interjecting. Mr ROPER - That is clearly what is being suggested by honourable members opposite, and it will be interesting to get the attitude of the private sector on that proposition. What is more serious is the ongoing and consistent attack on John Ralph and those who were on that committee. Honourable members should bear in mind the very foolish interjection from someone who tried to be too clever - the honourable member for Berwick - and who suggested that these people were Labor Party hacks. One is unlikely to find people like Sir Donald Trescowthick at a Labor Party meeting, or Ron Walker, Peter Oemenger, Brian Quinn or Kevan Gosper or the others who put a huge amount of their personal time and effort into this bid and, for doing so, they get attacked by the honourable member for Portland who probably does not even know the people concerned because they are not the sorts of people who would normally want to come into contact with him. This was followed up by the establishment of the Melbourne Events Committee and again, according to the honourable members for Portland and Berwick, this is a place for Labor Party hacks! That is what they say. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 455

The Minister for Sport and Recreation specifically pointed out that as a result of the excellent, cooperative work that occurred on the Olympic bid, an events committee has been established which is already starting to have some success. That was then attacked by the honourable member for Portland. Let us go through these so-called Labor Party hacks who are being attacked, again for giving up their time and putting their significant private effort into backing Victoria. Let us examine some of the members of the Melbourne Events Committee who are supposed to be Labor Party hacks. They are: John Ralph, Peter Bartels, Ron Walker, Malcolm Colless, and Diana Gribble, to name just five. There are also Ministers and other members on the committee who may well be connected with the Labor Party. Horwurable members interjecting. Mr ROPER - But I would suggest that in any organisation, naturally, there would be government people and members of the business community and sports people who are connected with the Labor Party. There are also people who are connected with the Liberal Party and there are probably people who are not connected with any party at all; and particularly given the anti-business attitude of honourable members opposite they are probably less connected with the Liberal Party than they were some time ago. Let us examine the members of the Sports Committee who are maligned by the honourable members for Portland and Berwick. They are Ron Walker, John Bertram, John Haddad, Peter Bartels, Max Beck, Geoff Henke, Ron Casey and Debbie Flintoff-King. Let us now examine the members of the Arts Committee who are also being maligned by honourable members opposite. They are Diana Gribble, who is the chairperson, John Gandel, William Conn, Hugh Morgan and others. I am sure Hugh Morgan would be particularly sensitive to being separated out by honourable members opposite as being a Labor Party hack. He is not, and he is certainly no supporter of the Labor Party. However he is a supporter of efforts by the government and the community to get improvement for Melbourne and that is why he and these other people like Peter Clemenger, Sam Smorgon, James Strong, Malcolm Colless and Will Bailey are working on this Arts Committee to follow up the work that was done as part of the games bid. That is why those people are continuing this work. It is amazing to hear these kinds of attacks on people who are putting in a lot of time and personal effort to boost Melbourne. They understand that there are significant opportunities which we as a community need to take up. The opposition has nothing to do with anything that is positive; it simply knocks it. The Minister for Sport and Recreation mentioned during his Ministerial statement that there had been a previous Olympic Games bid. No statement was ever made as to the cost of that bid. Indeed, I have recently been reminded of the publications produced as part of the bid, after the Federal government, a Liberal government, had already knocked the bid on the head. Anyone who wants to examine how money was spent on Brian Dixon's bid - I notice he is still having some trouble - need only look at the MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

456 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

publications and bid that the previous Liberal government put in. It spent a fortune on publications, even after the bid had effectively been sunk. It was not an adequate bid. It did not involve the private sector and community organisations that this government deliberately went out to get. The government deliberately established an organisation that was free of State government control; that was a joint exercise and will have its accounts properly audited as a company should be properly audited. If there is any suggestion of impropriety in relation to that audit, if not the honourable member for Portland - who probably would not know where to find Mr Ralph - the Leader of the Opposition, who certainly would know where to find Mr Ralph, should go and discuss the matter with him. I am sure the opposition will be put right quickly by John Ralph and other members of the Olympic bid committee that everything was done properly that could be done in seeking to host the 1996 Olympic Games. The Ministerial statement costed the in-house type of assistance, such as assistance from government departments and agencies. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation said, the honourable member for Portland did not challenge that aspect. If government departments and agencies had not been prepared to get in and back the bid they would have been condemned, not just by the government and the community, but by those working in the business sector to get these games for Melbourne. When departments asked for assistance they were given assistance. The government committed itself to do all it could to gain the bid, as I thought had the opposition. When government departments had the opportunity of assisting they did assist. The list provided by my colleague clearly sets out the broad range of departments that were prepared to assist. They were prepared to assist in other areas such as with the Major Events Committee. Olympic Games and various other international sporting events are not easy to obtain and require significant work to be done. The honourable member for Portland, who clearly knows nothing about these issues, suggested that there was never any doubt that the World Cup cricket final would be held at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The honourable member should talk to people like Ray Steele and other sports administrators in this State. If he bothered to do that he would find out that there was a fierce contest between venues to hold the World Cup Cricket Series final, which Melbourne eventually won. Rather than pouring derision on efforts being made to get these major events for Melbourne, the honourable member should be congratulating not just government people, but private sector people and sporting administrators who are working hard in cooperation with the government. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Portland singled out the fonner Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Bill Deveney, for particular attack. Anyone who saw Mr Deveney's performance during the course of the bid would realise that he put every effort of his own and that of the Melbourne City Council into ensuring that the bid was successful. If the honourable member for Portland bothered to talk to the people he is attacking -- members of Melbourne's business community - they would tell him that MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 457

they were extremely pleased with the efforts Bill Deveney put in and that a lot of other people put in as well. The Ministerial statement sets out clearly the work that was done by the private sector and the government. It sets out clearly that not just members of the Olympic bid committee contributed, but so did many government departments and agencies. It sets out, importantly, that as a result of the unsuccessful bid and the work that went into it a lot of people who had not given their time and effort to promoting Melbourne previously are now doing so on an ongoing basis. If anyone has any doubt about that commitment they should talk to members of the Major Events Committee and the sports and arts committees and they will see that as a result of those efforts there is now much greater business commitme~t to Melbourne and to its promotion than before. Anyone who doubts that there is a feeling in Victorian business about boosting Melbourne should go along to functions organised by the Committee for Melbourne. I suppose next year John Elliott will be a Labor Party hack! He is another person who has put in significantly to the Olympic Games bid and is continuing to put in so far as the promotion of Melbourne is concerned. Honourable members opposite do not seem to have any understanding of the work people are prepared to do to boost activity in Victoria. Rather than knocking and condemning, the opposition should be looking for opportunities to talk to the people I have mentioned this morning to ensure that we are getting the best out of the work going on to boost Victoria. It should desist from these constant attacks on people from all political parties and persuasions who are putting in their time to back Victorian development. Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) - The first comment I wish to make on the Ministerial statement is that we favoured the Olympic bid. It was the right thing to do at the time and it was important to the community and to the State. The failure of the bid was disappointing but the important thing is that the best shot was given and it showed Victoria's potential. I hope the programs planned at the time of the bid will be developed. The Melbourne Cricket Ground is a magnificent stadium, possibly the best in the world. The new Southern Stand is something that can be attributed to the bid. Another initiative is the development of athletic tracks.

Some mistakes were made but those mistakes will be rectified in time. Vital information was gathered from the time the bid commenced in 1988 and that will be passed on for the future of this State and perhaps to the Sydney people to be used in their bid to host the OlympiC Games in the year 2000. Sporting facilities in this country are extremely important. Australia is recognised as a great sporting country and it is hoped some of the initiatives used for the bid will develop into better sporting facilities.

It is important that the financial contributions made to the Olympic bid are accounted for. The community must know where the money raised was spent. A lot of figures have been floated around, some in the order of $27 million and more. The 101 club, or whatever it is called, contributed a lot of money as did many big business organisations, MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

458 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

and they have a right to know how that money was spent. It is hoped this Ministerial statement will lead to better accounting of contributions in the future.

I should like to take up with the Ministry of Finance and the former Department of Property and Services the list of contributors to the bid. For instance, the Chief Commissioner of Police donated $13 900. I should like to know why the chief commissioner was contributing that amount. If it were from the Ministry of Police and Emergency Services, I could understand it, but I was surprised to see that the Ministry gave $1000. What is going on? That is the sort of issue the community is entitled to know about.

If the bid had been successful it would have been of enormous importance for Melbourne. The former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, was prepared to spend a lot of public money on the bid so he must have had some reason for doing so. If the bid had been successful possibly he would have been the Premier and the government would have stayed in office until after the 1996 Olympic Games. The games would probably have got the State going again after the massive losses it has sustained.

The gain to Victoria may have been only in the short term but at least it would have got the economy going. I know a lot of people in the housing industry and in real estate were looking forward to the Olympic Games to revive the economy. For instance, people who owned blocks of flats expected to be in for a real killing. Unfortunately that opportunity is not now available and the economy is in a state of absolute disaster.

I hope the bid has some positive sides to it and that the planning for new facilities will eventuate. I call on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to do everything he can to ensure that the developments initiated will continue to completion. This side of the House supports the provision of sporting facilities not only in Melbourne and on the outskirts of Melbourne but also in the country areas because sport and recreation is extremely important to this community.

I believe the experts employed for the bid have been moved across to the Major Events Committee. I wonder what their new jobs entail and what the future of the body is, how it will be funded and where the support will come from.

As I said earlier the most important issue to come from this Ministerial statement is that we find out what happened to the money contributed to the fund. We need a complete accounting by the Melbourne Olympic bid committee.

Mrs BARKER (Bentleigh) - I move:

That debate be adjourned.

House divided on motion: COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 459

Ayes, 44 Mr Andrianopoulos Mrs Hill MrRowe Mr Baker Mrs Hirsh MrSandon Mrs Barker Mr Jolly MrSeitz Mr Batchelor MrKennan MrSercombe MrCain MrKennedy Ms Setches Mr Cole (Teller) Ms Kimer Mr A. J. Sheehan MrCrabb Mr Leighton (Teller) Mr F. P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham Mr McCutcheon MrShell Mr Dollis MrMcDonald MrSimmonds MrEmst MrMathews MrSpyker MrsFordham Mr Micallef MrThomson MrGarbutt MrNorris MrTrezise MrGavin MrPope OrVaughan Mr Hamilton Mrs Ray MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRoper MrsWilson Noes, 35 Mr Austin Mr Jasper MrPescott Mr Bildstien Mr John Mr Richardson Mr Clark (Teller) Mr Kennett Mr Ross-Edwards Mr Coleman Mr Lea Mr E. R. Smith Mr Cooper Mr Leigh Mrl. W.Smith Mr Delzoppo Mr Lieoerman MrSteggall Mr Dickirison Mr J. F. McGrath MrTanner Mr Elder Mr Madellan MrsWade Mr Evans Mr Maughan MrWallace Mr Gude Or Napthine MrWeideman Mr Hayward Mr Perrin Or Wells Mr Honeywood Mr Perton (Teller) Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Debate adjourned until next day.

COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL Introduction and first reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) introduced a Bill to establish a new system for the transfer of civil proceedings between courts and for that purpose to amend the Supreme Court Act 1986, the County Court Act 1958 and the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, to alter the jwisdictionallimits of the County Court and the Magistrates' Court in civil proceedings, to make further provision concerning the office of Reserve Judge in the Supreme Court and the County Court and for that purpose to amend the Constitution Act 1975 and the County Court Act 1958 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

SESSIONAL ORDERS Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: That, until 31 December 1991 - 1. Standing Order No. 124 be suspended and the following rule applied in its place: SESSIONAL ORDERS

460 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

" 124. A Member may be at liberty to ask an oral question without notice at the time of giving notices of motion. Provided that such questions may be asked from the time Mr Speaker calls on Questions until the lapse of - (a) 45 minutes on Tuesday; and (b) 30 minutes on other days, unless such time be extended at the discretion of Mr Speaker"; and 2. Standing Order No. 104 be suspended and the following rule applied in its place: "104. No Member shall speak for more than 20 minutes in any debate in the House except in debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill when a Member may speak for 30 minutes. Provided that, with the consent of a majority of the House on a motion to be moved and determined at once without amendment or deba te, a Member ma y be allowed to continue such speech for a further period not exceeding 10 minutes. Provided also that the mover, Leader of the Government, Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the Third Party or any Member deputed to speak first on -- (a) the motion for second reading of a Bill (except the Appropriation Bill) or a substantive and independent motion, may speak for 1 hour and, with the consent of a majority of the House on a motion to be moved and determined at once withou t amendment or debate, ma y continue such speech for a further period not exceeding 30 minutes; and (b) the motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill shall not be limited in time. When any Leader deputes his right he shall then be limited to the same extent as other Mem bers. In Committee, except as provided under Standing Orders, no Member other than a Member in charge of a Bill or motioI\ or Minister in charge of an Estimate, shall speak more than twice on anyone question, nor more than 15 minutes on the first occasion and 10 minutes on the second occasion"; and 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders: (a) A Minister may move a motion specifying a maximum time limit (exclusive of any adjournment or suspension of sitting) for the consideration of a Government Bill or Bills (except a Supply Bill). (b) A maximum time limit may be allotted for the following stages of each Bill­ (i) For the second reading stage; (ii) For the Committee stage; and (iii) For the remaining stages. (c) Upon such motion being moved, debate thereon shall be limited to 15 minutes and no Member shall speak for more than 5 minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the Chair shall put the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (d) On the Order of the Day relating to a Bill which has had time limits imposed being called on, a Minister may move a motion varying the maximum time limit for a particular stage or stages and upon such motion being moved, debate thereon shall be limited to 15 minutes and no Member shall speak for more than 5 minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the Chair shall put the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (e) On the expiration of the time allotted- (i) the Chair shall put forthwith the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair for the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on a Bill; and (ii) in the case of the consideration of any Bill in Committee or on any of the remaining stages, the Chair shall put any clauses and schedules and any amendment and new clauses and schedules desired by the Government - copies of which have been circulated by the Government among Members 1 hour at least before the expiration of SESSIONAL ORDERS

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 461

the allotted time - and any other question required to dispose of the Bill before the Committee or the House. No other amendments, new clauses or schedules shall be proposed. (f) Standing Order No. 70 (Closure of Debate) and Standing Order No. 105 (Guillotine) shall not apply to any proceedings in respect of which a time limit has been fixed in pursuance of this resolution. For some time there have been discussions about improving the operation of Parliament. Discussions have occurred not only within the Standing Orders Committee but also between the various honourable members responsible for government and opposition business. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I ask the Treasurer whether he has notes similar to a second-reading speech to be distributed or whether honourable members must read his comments in Hansard. I shall listen to what the Treasurer says, but if notes similar to a second-reading speech were given out it would be helpful. The SPEAKER - Order! There are no second-reading type notes available. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - Discussions have taken place between the parties on how to improve the operation of Parliament. Until now agreement has not been reached about the various issues raised. The motion attempts to achieve a number of goals, the first being to adopt two parts of the report of the Standing Orders Committee relating to the time permitted for questions without notice and for contributions during the second-reading stage. All honourable members, even those who are sometimes guilty of time-related offences, would agree that, on occasions, some members tend to run around the track in a repetitive way. Although few members in this place have spoken for 3 or 4 hours, there are certainly members, who, in retrospect, would agree that they could have said what they were going to say in somewhat less time. I am not suggesting that always people can absolutely stick to a minimum of time but the Standing Orders Committee found that in general debates there should be a reduction in time and that is being taken up in the second of Standing Order amendments in relation to Standing Order No. 104. The third item relates to a fundamental difficulty in Parliament where, unlike the Commonwealth Parliament and various other Parliaments, we have not been able to reach agreement on a Parliamentary timetable. I am speaking about business to be dealt with today and what are the times for it and what is to be raised in a week. The recent report of strategic management review highlighted on pages 51 and 52 some of the issues seen from a perspective outside of this Chamber because one of the authors was a member of the other place, which has different arrangements. That person suggested that there should be more fixed times and more definite arrangements in relation to major Bills. SESSIONAL ORDERS

462 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

The reason I had moved the change in sessional orders is because there is no way either through a sessional order or a Standing Order that one can actually compel agreement as has effectively been done in the Federal Parliament where the Leaders of the various parties meet on a regular basis and determine times. It would be splendid if we could adopt that Canberra arrangement but, having promoted a number of discussions between the parties, that has not been possible so instead it is proposed that there be set a time limit for a Bill. But as will be seen in reading the proposed change there is a capacity for the House to subsequently change that, and the reason for the additional provision being there is to ensure that if members come forward and suggest that additional time is required for a Bill, that can be dealt with expeditiously because some Bills have a greater need for debate than others and often more members than it is anticipated become interested in a Bill after it has been introduced. An example would be the major mining legislation of last year which was clearly not only an important second-reading debate but also a significant Committee Bill. The aim of these three proposals, which are proposed for a trial period, is to actually increase the number of members able to participate in debates, and to get a more definite pattern to debates. I would have to say that quite frequently it is members of the Liberal or National parties who express concern about when Bills will come on or how long they will take because they have a reasonable interest in being able to plan their arrangements. At the moment under the way the House operates that is not possible for most of the time. I have said to the other two parties that if they have other suggestions, particularly in relation to the third item, we are quite happy to discuss that with them. It is not the government's intention to proceed with the debate today but rather to give the opposition time to consider the motion, so the debate will be adjourned. If there are any suggestions as to how the aim of item 3 can be achieved by some other means, I am more than happy to take those suggestions back to the government to see whether there is, in fact, a better way of so doing. But our aim is to have a better capacity than what is in place now for definite times in debate, particularly for major Bills. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESCOTT (Bennettswood). Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: That the debate be adjourned until Wednesday, 27 March. Additional time will be granted if required. Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On the question of time, I think honourable members would be advantaged if they had copies of tomorrow's daily Hansard in sufficient quantities to be able to view the remarks made by the Leader of the House in supporting the motion. Unless that request is made early, it is unlikely to be fulfilled and we are unlikely to see sufficient copies of that speech. THE CONSTITUfION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Wednesday. 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 463

Also the Papers Room would need to be alerted to ensure that there are sufficient copies of the earlier Standing Orders Committee report, and also sufficient copies if there is a need to replace the ones of honourable members who have not kept the copy of the recent report on the operations of Parliament. All three - the copies of Hansard, the committee report and the report on the operations of Parliament have been referred to by the Leader of the House in supporting the motion.

I make a further plea to the Leader of the House to give additional time now through an adjournment of a fortnight. I am making these remarks not because of the various views regarding the amount of adjournment time, but because all honourable members will benefit by having the opportunity of reviewing those documents over Easter and then resuming the matter after Easter.

That is not an unreasonable request to make to the Leader of the House. This issue concerns a fundamental change to both question time and debating time. It is a question of Parliamentary balance and these are very delicate matters and not matters to be approached in strictly partisan ways. If the debate is to proceed in th~ best atmosphere it would be best to proceed with an adjournment of a fortnight, with honourable members clearly having the opportunity of being well-informed before making their contributions on the resumption of the debate.

So I make that request to the Leader of the House that in a spirit of generosity the government should give a fortnight's adjournment so that, those papers being available, honourable members can make an informed and positive contribution to the debate.

The SPEAKER - Order! In respect of the various documents, I will make the necessary arrangements to ensure that adequate copies are available, and in respect of the daily Hansard it may be appropriate simply to make provision for extracts to be made available rather than the entire daily Hansard.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Wednesday, 27 March.

THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Mr A.J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) introduced a Bill to make miscellaneous amendments to The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958.

Read first time. RACING (SUNDAY MIXED SPORTS GATHERINGS) BILL

464 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

RACING (SUNDAY MIXED SPORTS GATHERINGS) BILL Introduction and first reading Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) introduced a Bill to amend the Racing Act 1958 to provide for betting on events in mixed sports gatherings held on Sundays.

Read first time.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL Order of the Day read for resumption of debate.

Sitting suspended 12.51 p.m. until 2.3 p.m. Second reading Debate resumed from 19 March; motion of Mr POPE (Minister for Labour). Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) - I welcome this opportunity to join the debate and express my strong support for the Industrial Relations Bill, which is a major piece of legislative reform. The Bill is strongly supported by the entire community - the government, employers and employees. Sadly, the odd organisation out is the State opposition. The Bill provides for the establishment of a modem, responsive and flexible industrial relations system. Among some of the key objectives of the proposed legislation is that, firstly, in difficult and challenging economic times it will provide the framework for reform and restructuring. It will meet the needs of employees and employers and their representative organisations. Secondly, the provisions of the Bill are consistent with the direction being taken at the Federal level. The Bill will complement and assist the changes being developed at the national level. Thirdly - and this should be the object of any industrial relations legislation - the Bill will promote harmony and cooperation in the industrial relations system, whether through the processing of industrial relations matters or the resolution of industrial disputes. An important point is that the government is aiming through the Bill to establish harmony and cooperation and hopefully will avoid disputes arising in the first place. The alternative offered by the opposition is confrontation, and I suggest it is deliberately seeking to establish a system that will lead to confrontation because the opposition is not interested in the prevention and resolution of disputes. The Bill has the support of employees and employers. The trade union movement endorses the Bill as a package. It has the support also of major employer organisations, such as the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations, the Australian Chamber of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 465

Manufactures, and the Victorian Employers Federation. As I said, the State opposition is the odd organisation out in consideration of the Bill. That is, if one does not refer to the loopy ideas of the Small Business Association of Victoria, which is the only organisation - apart from the opposition - that has been prepared to come out and oppose the Bill. Mr Pope interjected.

Mr LEIGHTON - That is quite correct, and they are very loopy ideas. I have three important pieces of correspondence from major employer associations in which they indicate their attitudes towards the Bill. Two of the letters were written in November last year and are addressed to the Minister for Labour. The first letter to which I refer is dated 28 November; it is signed by Mr David Ed wards on behalf of the Victorian Employers Federation. The second letter, from the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, is dated 29 November and is signed by Mr Ken Crompton - hardly a Labor Party plant or hack.

I have a more recent letter, dated 22 February 1991, from the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations. It is addressed to Mr P. Gude, MP, shadow Minister for employment and industrial relations - the honourable member for Hawthorn. The letter makes it clear in no uncertain terms that every employer organisation supports the Bill.

I refer to several passages from the three letters so that honourable members need not take my word for it when considering whether employer organisations support the Bill. In part the letter of 28 November written by the Victorian Employers Federation to the Minister for Labour states:

The Bill represents an important and fundamental restating of the industrial relations system operating in the State. It creates a clear and logical framework which can be utilised by employers and employees to prevent and settle industrial matters of all kinds. By clearly setting downa series of objects which are based on an orderly and fair approach that has regard for the interests of Victoria as a whole, as well as for the interests of the direct parties, the Bill provides substance for the framework.

Here is strong endorsement of the Bill. I refer also to the letter of 29 November from the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. Again, it is addressed to the Minister for Labour and states that the Australian Chamber of Manufactures:

.. .is happy to say that it supports the basic purpose, thrust and content of the Bill and, in particular, its proposals for a new industrial relations framework which we believe will better meet the needs of both the community and the direct participants in the system. In this respect, we particularly endorse those provisions which specify the objects of the Act and the emphasis requiring the Commission to take into account the public interest, including the impact of its decisions on the Victorian economy and the general community. Here is ringing endorsement of the Bill. Even after the publicity broke as a result of the opposition's sojourn at Portsea and it became clear that the opposition would block the Bill as part of its overall tactics, the issues were debated between the opposition and employers. As late as 22 February this year, the Victorian Congress of Employer 77597/91-16 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

466 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Associations had something to say about the Bill in a letter to the honourable member for Hawthorn. The Victorian Congress of Employer Associations said:

... we take the view that the interests of Victorian employers would be substantially assisted if the reforms contained in the Bill were quickly passed into law. The reforms made by the Bill are extensive and represent the most dramatic reforms proposed in recent times ... We urge the opposition to release this Bill from the grip of the general policy position adopted. On its merits, this Bill should be passed. That hardly strikes me as an indication that employers have been bludgeoned or blackmailed into supporting the Bill. Far from it. The opposition fails to understand that in industrial relations lengthy consultations are involved. The various parties win some arguments and make concessions on others. At the end of the day a consensus emerges and a package is adopted. All major parties except for the Small Business Association of Victoria and the opposition have accepted the reforms. The various signatories to the letter from the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations were: the Metal Trades Industry Association, the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Master Builders Association of Victoria, the Retail Traders Association of Victoria, the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia, the Victorian Road Transport Federation, the Victorian Employers Federation, and the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce. That is a significant representation of industry and employers. I turn now to a few of the key features of the Bill. One significant feature is that it abolishes the conciliation and arbitration boards that are known colloquially as wages boards. In doing so it will provide both economy and flexibility in the processing of industrial matters. The industrial relations process will be speedier and more streamlined in striking an award or achieving award changes. Individual members of the Industrial Relations Commission, whether they be the president, deputy presidents or commissioners, will be able to sit in single session, or, alternatively, the commission will be able to sit in full session. A process will be put in place so that appeals against the decisions of single members can proceed to the full commission. That will bring the operation of the State Industrial Relations Commission into line with the Federal system. I shall now highlight the basic weakness of the position adopted by the opposition. The opposition has said, liDo not proceed by way of introducing a new Bill; let's amend the 1979 Industrial Relations Act". The problem with that approach is that the Act is predicated on the existence and operation of conciliation and arbitration boards. It is not possible to make the major changes trade unions and employers want the government to make simply by amending the Act. It is necessary for us to start again. But the opposition should not take my word for it. What have the major employers said about the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration boards?

Mr Kennett - Why have you dumped Roper? INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 467

Mr LEIGHTON - The Treasurer has not been dumped. He will be fine. It beats ha ving Kroger on your tail! The Victorian Employers Federation had this to say about the conciliation and arbitration boards: The abolition of the system of conciliation and arbitration boards is welcomed by us. This system served Victoria well in the past but increasingly it has been unsuitable for the nature of modem industrial relations. Mr Gude - All your speakers have read this! Mr LEIGHTON -It is a pity the honourable member for Hawthorn has not shown it to his colleagues. Did you just sit on the letter when you received it? Perhaps you should have shown it to your own side. Maybe then they would have had a rethink on the troglodytic position taken on this Bill. Have you shown the letter to them or should the government be showing it to opposition members? Mr Maclellan - No, we've seen it. Mr LEIGHTON - You really have adopted a troglodytic position. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures said: We also strongly support the proposed abolition of the conciliation and arbitration boards which, while they have served Victoria well in the past, are clearly not appropriate in the 1990s. This and other provisions in the Bill will facilitate desirable cooperation with the Federal commission. Another area of reform in the Bill concerns recognised associations. The Bill provides for associations of both employees and employers to be recognised and, through being recognised, they become parties to the award. Previously associations gained recognition by attaining seats on the conciliation and arbitration boards, but that approach was cumbersome and time consuming. The new arrangements will be more efficient and cost effective and will assist in the processing of matters before the commission. One requirement of the proposed legislation is that associations have a minimum of 300 members. In examining what is occurring at the national level for registration of associations I suggest that figure is more than reasonable. The Bill will establish an independent registry. An industrial registrar will be appointed by Governor in Council for a maximum of seven years. The staff of the registry will be employed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Service Act. This will enable closer cooperation between the State and Federal commissions. Another major reform in the Bill is the provision for an Industrial Magistrates Court to hear both industrial and occupational health and safety matters. That is not as radical, bold or unusual as the opposition will have us believe. The 1979 Act provides for a Metropolitan Magistrates Court but that court has not worked in practice. I point out that every mainland State has an industrial relations court. What Victoria is proposing is hardly different or revolutionary. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

468 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

I turn now to the issue of unfair dismissals, which will involve some major reforms. The first is the requirement to notify of an "unfair dismissal", which is something the opposition may not understand. The requirement for notification will be extended from four to ten business days. Although Trecall my experiences as a former trade union official, I can also advise the House of people who have come into my electorate office claiming that they have been unfairly dismissed. The opposition should be concerned about this because these people are not union members and have nowhere else to go. Over the past few months at least four such people who had been dismissed and had at least some grounds to contest the dismissal came in but were unaware of the requirement of notifying within four business days and so had nowhere to go. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mr LEIGHTON - You can click your fingers -- The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! Honourable members should address the Chair. Mr LEIGHTON - It just shows how heartless the honourable member for Berwick is when it comes to treating individual workers fairly and humanely. As far as unions were concerned they had to go through artificial devices to get around the four days requirement, such as notifying a dispute under another section of the Act. In that sense the Bill recognises current practice. A further feature of the Bill is that it provides for several options if it is found that the person was harshly, unjustly or unfairly dismissed. In those circumstances we should be most interested in reinstatement to the position from which the worker was dismissed. If that is not possible a further option would be redeployment into another position and a last resort -- it should only be looked at as a last resort - is compensation for the dismissal. The provisions of this part of the Bill will only apply to those people covered under awards made pursuant to the Act or, in certain circumstances, people employed under Federal awards where those awards make specific reference to State law. The other important thing I have seen the employers welcome is that the appeals will have to be taken under the provisions of an exclusive code. The Bill frees sheltered workshops from the various award provisions. Ideally we want to get disabled workers into the mainstream of the work force, but where that is not possible it is important that sheltered workshops be allowed to continue operating so that disabled people can be provided with meaningful occupations and activities. In my view there are limitations to that situation and, where possible, I would rather see people move into the mainstream of the work force. I move to a couple of hoary old chestnuts. Firstly, this Bill clarifies the secret ballot provisions. I wonder how fair dinkum the opposition is about having secret ballots. Mr Gude interjected. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday> 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 469

Mr LEIGHTON - The provisions have been in the legislation and you have not used them. During my time as a trade union official there were occasions when I had to persuade a membership not to go out on strike. On one occasion I filibustered and spoke for 8 hours. Under the opposition's arrangements we could have gone straight to a vote and they would possibly be out on strike now. What happens if workers do vote to go out? Is the opposition going to have a secret ballot to call them back in? Is the opposition going to have trade union members involved in undemocratic motions to go back to work?

In my experience I have seen union memberships reject recommendations to go out on strike and recommendations to stay at work, and where they have accepted a recommendation to go out on strike there has been a full-and open debate with people not being afraid to put differing points of view.

The Bill also provides for conscientious objection - another hoary old chestnut the opposition will lose. The Bill provides for conscientious objection to joining a union. The Bill also outlaws preference of employment clauses.

While many unionists are not happy to see a situation where non-unionists will be able to get award benefits and conditions that union members have had to strive for, I suppose that will be just an unsatisfactory fact of life.

Many unions themselves have no particular brief for compulsory unionism. The attitude of many unions is that they should be able to go out into the marketplace to compete for members and convince people to join unions because of the benefits unions provide. Those unions would rather gain members in that way and have a committed membership than have people coerced into joining a union.

Mr J. F. McGrath interjected.

Mr LEIGHTON - I do not have any particular difficulty with that; most unions operate very well that way.

I have also had a look at a news release dated 27 February 1991 put out by the State opposition in the name of the honourable member for Hawthorn. The honourable member makes a number of statements that are clearly false or misleading.

On the first page of the news release he says:

The Bill does nothing to promote enterprise bargaining. That is nonsense. By removing the conciliation and arbitration boards the Bill streamlines the operations of the commission, and awards and other industrial matters will be able to be processed more quickly. The enterprise bargaining principles have already been recognised by the commission. Surely the honourable member is not suggesting there be some other sort of jurisdiction to deal with enterprise bargaining matters. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

470 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Honourable members do not need just to take the word of those on this side of the House as to whether the Bill promotes enterprise bargaining. The Victorian Employers Federation had this to say about the enterprise bargaining aspects of the Bill: The greater flexibility available to the parties to make agreements directly and have them certified is welcomed. This flexibility should create valuable options for exploration by Victorian employers and their employees. Similarly the Australian Chamber of Manufactures said in a letter to the Minister for Labour dated 29 November 1990: We welcome the introduction of the provisions for enterprise agreements along the lines of those in the Commonwealth legislation and believe this will provide flexibility for those who wish to govern their industrial relationship by such means rather than by the application of State common rule awards. In his press release of 27 February the honourable member for Hawthorn claimed that the government had no electoral mandate to proceed with the Bill. That is also nonsense. It was before my time but I understand the government tried in March 1988 to introduce legislation and that the Labor Party went to the 1988 election with a specific platform in its industrial relations policy to pursue the provisions it is now pursuing in this Bill. The honourable member for Hawthorn on page 2 of his press release said:

Sub~ontractors and owner-operators should be excluded from the Act. In its present form they could be deemed employees by the industrial commission. That statement is simply wrong. In many cases it is not clear whether a person is an employer or an employee, and when this Bill has passed the commission will have the opportunity to provide that clarification. The honourable member for Hawthorn said on page 3 of his press release in dealing with his concerns: ... Industrial Magistrates Court, which will establish a new bureaucracy with wider power. No doubt many of the positions will be given to political appointees, as has been done with WorkCare. It is clear the qualifications for becoming an industrial magistrate are the same as for becoming an ordinary magistrate. As I said earlier, this is not exactly a revolutionary step but one which applies in every other State in Australia. On page 3 of the same press release the honourable member for Hawthorn had this to say in respect of unfair dismissal:

... unfair dismissal assumes incorrectly that the dismissal is always unfair; it is anti-employer. The term "unfair dismissal" is not used in the Act; it is a colloquial shorthand term for harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal. The case has to be proved and the onus is on the employee to establish that he or she has been unfairly dismissed. We were talking only about those cases that have been proven. We should listen to what employers have to say about the provisions for unfair dismissal in the Industrial Relations Bill. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures says: Finally, we agree with the proposals to confine the unfair dismissals jurisdiction to those covered by awards of the commission and to make clear that these constitute an exhaustive "code". INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 471

The Victorian Congress of Employers Associations had this to say in its letter to the honourable member for Hawthorn: In relation to dismissals a comprehensive and exclusive code dealing with this issue is established in Part 15 Division 1 of the Bill. It should be noted that nowhere in the Bill is the term "unfair dismissal" used. The section of Part 15 refers to procedures for dealing with ''harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissals". This is important as it highlights the fact that to sustain an application for examination of the circumstances of any dismissal an employee or union must show that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The concept of "unfairness" does not enter into the matter. I hope I have clarified that issue once and for all because the statements by the honourable member for Hawthorn in his press release are not only misleading but downright wrong. Another complaint of the honourable member for Hawthorn is that the Trades Hall Council is recognised by legislation whereas employers have to apply for it. The Trades Hall Council is clearly a unique body and it is appropriate that it be written into the legislation. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures says about the provision: We also welcome those provisions providing for individual employers or groups of employers to be granted the same rights and obligations as recognised employer associations in appropriate cases as well as the continuation of provisions for recognition of such associations. In conclusion I shall refer one final time to what the employers have had to say about the Bill. A good summary statement is that of the Victorian Confederation of Employers Associations: The combination of these provisions achieves for employers something that has long been missing in the Victorian industrial relations system. We now have a linkage between the handling of industrial issues and the public interest, particularly the state of the economy and the impact of industrial settlements on the level of employment and on inflation. The Bill is a major piece of reform. It is supported by the entire community, including all unions and all sensible employer organisations. I plead with the opposition to have one final look at the letter from the confederation to the opposition industrial relations spokesman to determine whether the opposition's thinking has gone wrong. There is strong community support for the Bill, and I hope the opposition will join it. Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) - The Industrial Relations Bill is a major rewrite of the Industrial Relations Act 1979. It is a known fact that the opposition believes the industrial relations picture in this State is so devastating that the Bill and the industrial relations record of this government should be put to the people in an election. It is my view that, if the government does not like the fact that the opposition opposes the Bill, it should have the guts to go to the people, to put its platform forward. We will take on the government at any time, any place. I do not have to remind the House that this State is in an absolute economic crisis. It has the worst economic record of any State in Australia and there have been scandals from one part of the State to the other. Literally thousands of millions of dollars have been lost by incompetent government decisions - everything from the State Bank and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

472 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, which were effectively sold off because of the incompetence of the government -- to strikes. We all remember the strike that tied up the city with trams, from one end of the city to the other. Mr Cooper - Who was the Minister who caused that? Mr PERRIN - The former Minister for Transport tried to introduce a scratch ticket system, but that system has been scrapped. They scrapped the scratch! It cost the taxpayers of the State many millions of dollars to wear that experiment. The industrial relations record of this State is abysmal. I shall refer to two disputes in recent times. The Hoechst dispute saw the spectacle of the Premier going down to the picket line and giving comfort to the workers. It was interesting that she did not go into the factory to talk to the workers who were working, wanting to produce and to achieve economic benefits for this State. Her contribution to that dispute was to give comfort to the strikers and the people who were fighting with the police in front of that factory. Another dispute of considerable importance was the meatworkers dispute. Because of the irresponsible actions of trade unions, $100 million worth of export production was lost to this State. What do we hear from this government? Nothing at all. It made no attempt to resolve that dispute. That is an indication of how it is paralysed and not able to govern this State. Mr Maclellan - Is Wally Curran a socialist or a vegetarian? Mr PERRIN - I do not know, but I know he has done much damage to this State. Many thousands of jobs could have been created with that $100 million worth of export meat orders. The opposition would be happy to have an election on this Bill and the record of the government in this area. I could mention other disputes, such as the Heinz dispute, and the Leighton's St Kilda Road building dispute where police resources were tied up while the government did nothing. That is the new industrial climate in this State and one must ask how we have got ourselves into such an economic crisis. Over the past two years Victoria has experienced an industrial dispute, par excellence. It was heralded in a rather unusual way by the Labor government. It showed the way for the future. It set the new industrial relations climate and showed how the Labor government would handle a union with which it was offside. I shall relate the facts to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that you will understand the new format for handling industrial relations in this country. If you were a government opposed to a union that had gone on strike, you would declare war with it. What better than to have the Leader of the Labor Party on television make a public declaration of war against a particular union on strike? The next step in the process would be to cancel the award affecting that union. One would have thought that would be an innovation for a Labor government, but it has set the trend. It sets a platform for the future and puts in place an industrial relations system and a way of handling the union movement. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 473

Not only did it declare war on the union, it then cancelled the award. The next thing you would do would be to issue union members and the union executive with a common-law claim and encourage the employers to take out a common-law claim for damages against the union. That is what the Labor government did. It actually helped the employers to bring a common-law claim against the unions. What a wonderful industrial relations picture we are putting together in this country! If you have a strike, you are likely to have a few scabs and if you are a Labor government and you want to break a strike, you would have to bring in some scabs. Where do you get them from?

The Labor government happened to have a rather unusual point. It did not want to use local scabs; it imported them from overseas. The Labor government was going overseas to bring in scabs to break a strike in Australia! What should one do to break a strike? How can one bring in a new industrial climate? Bring in the RAAF, the military, the defence forces, to break the unions and break the strike. What an agenda the Labor Party has set up for the future! When somebody asks how to break a union, there is the agenda.

If you really want to put the whole agenda together the next thing you do is pay the employers a subsidy from taxpayers' funds to keep them going during the course of the strike. One hundred million dollars does not sound too bad. You would take the taxpayers' funds, which should be used for the community, and give the money to the employers to make up the losses they incur so they can continue in some form. The other thing you would do is have the union deregistered. That would have to be part of the agenda, and that is exactly what happened. The Labor government assisted the employers to have the union totally deregistered. I am establishing a scenario I never thought could happen in this country. This government was hell-bent on attacking members of the union movement, and that is what has happened. It is a matter of public record that all those things happened. It brings to my mind a recent statement which encapsulates the situation in this country. It was not made by a member of a conservative party but a former well-known member of the Labor Party, Mr Kim Beazley, Snr. Honourable members remember him. He was a long-time member of the Labor Party and was a Minister in the Whitlam government. His comment was that when he first joined the Labor Party it was full of the cream of the working class but when he left it was full of the dregs of the middle class.

They are not my words; they are not words from the opposite side of the House. They are the words of a member of the Labor Party and a former Minister in the Whitlam government - a true believer! One of Labor's own is making that assessment of the party and a Labor government is putting on the record a new agenda for handling industrial relations.

What an incredible situation that is. It accurately reflects what is happening in this country. The Labor Party is being attacked by long-time members. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

474 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

This morning on the way here I heard an interesting interview on the Neil Mitchell program on 3A W. It was between Mr Mitchell and Mr Bob Smith who is a senior executive of the Federated Ironworkers' Association. The point of Mr Smith's comments, which are available for anybody who is interested, is that he felt the Victorian Trades Hall Council was totally out of touch with community opinion.

Mr Gude - He's got that right!

Mr PERRIN - The comments of Mr Bob Smith were reasonable and moderate and also accurate. He said the Trades Hall Council had handled the Hoechst and Heinz disputes particularly badly. He said the Trades Hall Council is out of touch because it supported Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war. The council said Australia should not have troops in the Middle East. The unions tried to stop a McDonald's Family Restaurant from being built in the Royal Children's Hospital.

Union leaders are totally out of touch. Do not take my point of view as evidence. On a radio program a union official is making the public comment that the Labor Party and its associates at the Victorian Trades Hall Council are totally out of touch.

Mr Pope interjected.

Mr PERRIN - He is a union official!

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, as you have indicated on other occasions during the debate on the Bill, the issue is industrial relations, not wide-ranging matters which include a union official the honourable member apparently idolises. He should be speaking on the Bill rather than the matters he has raised.

Mr PERRIN - On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, if you look in the Bill you will find that the Victorian Trades Hall Council is specifically recognised as an association by Act of Parliament. It is in there. I am talking about the Trades Hall Council.

Mr Pope interjected.

Mr PERRIN - I am on the right track because it is in the Bill and I am talking about the Victorian Trades Hall Council.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PERRIN - I do not want anyone to take my word for it. Take the word of union representatives on what is happening in this country. One has only to look at the present figures. Unionism has dropped and only 41 per cent of the work force in Victoria is in a union. That is a minority. People are leaving the unions in droves.

Mr Gude - It's 32 per cent in the private sector! INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 475

Mr PERRIN - Indeed, but overall it is 41 per cent. The figure has been dropping continually for the past decade, particularly during the terms of State and Federal Labor governments. People are deliberately not joining unions, and they have an absolute right not to join a union. The remaining 59 per cent have made a conscious choice not to be involved with the union movement. One of the interesting things about the Bill is there is no reference to what I might call award conditions. That is an unusual situation. Another issue not referred to in the Bill is long service leave. As I understand it, that will be the responsibility of the Industrial Relations Commission. Taxpayers have been subjected to a gross waste of their money in terms of a campaign to introduce portable long service leave. Victoria was going to lead the world in that area. Honourable members well remember the advertising campaigns. I have here a long service leave booklet entitled Long Service Leave- Soon You Can Take It With You. It was printed at the taxpayers' expense under the auspices of the then Minister, the present Minister for Conservation and Environment, and signed by the then Premier, Mr John Cain. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were used to try to establish a case for portable long service leave. One must ask why it is not in the Bill. Mr Gude - That Minister was the Minister who was going to sell guns to America, wasn't he? Mr PERRIN - Indeed he was. I want to put this on the record. I believe there is a reason why these normal award conditions are not in the Bill and why we are not specifying long service leave as an award condition. The reason is because the government is trying to bring in portable long service leave by the back door. It can get its mates on the Industrial Relations Commission to bring in portable long service leave as an award condition much more easily than by doing it through an Act of Parliament. There is no doubt so far as we on this side of the House are concerned that portable long service leave is not on. Victoria is in dire economic circumstances and cannot afford to introduce that impost on the employers of this State. A key aspect of industrial relations at present is very clear: unions are now putting themselves above the law. No matter what is passed in this Parliament, no matter what decisions are handed down by the Industrial Relations Commission, if unions want to they will igpore it. The reason for that is that they know nothing will be done to bring them into line because there are no punitive measures that can be taken against them to make them comply with the decisions of the commission. Mr Mac1ellan - There are no sanctions at all. Mr PERRIN - That is right, that is one of the problems that Victoria faces when unions are above the law - they are seen to be above the law and are actually above the law because they can get away with ignoring the Industrial Relations Commission. That has been seen time and again in this State with dispute after dispute. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

476 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

The view of the opposition is that measures must be taken against unions that do not play by the rules. If that means deregistration, so be it. If a party does not play by the rules of the commission it should not be part of the game. One union has been deregistered but I think there are others that need to be. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union is a union that should be deregistered because of the economic chaos it has caused in Victoria.

The opposition wants the new Industrial Registrar to have the power to look at the actions of the unions. Many union members question the decisions made by union leaders. There have been many instances in Victoria where the membership has been totally dissatisfied with the operations of the executive of a union. We on this side of the House say there should be legislation for pre-strike ballots; that is a critical situation.

As the honourable member for Hawthorn said, what the opposition is talking about is not secret ballots but pre-strike ballots, that is, no union can go on strike unless its members have a ballot before the strike and make a decision about the strike. Many union members want that and some have spoken to me about it. They want that because they know that in the privacy of a ballot there are many union members who would vote differently from the way they might vote in other circumstances.

It is the strong view of the opposition that the pre-strike ballot should be a major part of any industrial relations legislation. It will be part of the industrial relations law in this State upon the election of a conservative government. It is not part of the Bill before the House because the government is not interested in pre-strike ballots, all it talks about is some rubbish about secret ballots.

It is the opposition's view that the Bill before the House is wrong in terms of its provisions with regard to conscientious objection.

Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr PERRIN - You be quiet and listen and I will tell you what the opposition will do! The conscientious objection provisions in the Bill are totally inadequate. If people want to opt out of a union they have to explain their way out and pay to a charity or other body an amount equivalent to the union membership charge.

The opposition has a totally different view. There should be an inalienable right for a person to join or not join an association - an employer association or an employee association. That should be a fundamental human right like those enshrined by the United Nations, a right for any worker not to join a union or an association. It is a right for every employer not to be compulsorily forced into joining an employer association. That is fair enough.

It is the opposition's view that that is the sort of legislation that is needed. When that measure is introduced and people are given the choice of joining or not joining a union the present figure of 41 per cent of the work force being members of unions will drop. Those people will exercise their democratic and inalienable right to not join the union. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 477

I have a press release from the honourable member for Hawthorn that shows that since November 1986 he has time and again introduced legislation into this Parliament to enshrine that right in the laws of Victoria. That draft legislation will be passed after the next election. The opposition has the draft ready, it is on the Notice Paper and all the words are there. I make it clear that this is the sort of action that is needed now. Mrs Hirsh interjected.. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Wantirna is out of order and out of her place. An Honourable Member - Put her back in her cage. Mr PERRIN - Another part of the industrial relations package to be introduced after the next election is enterprise bargaining, so that an employer and an employee can sit down at a table and come to an agreement about their working conditions. At present Victoria is in dire financial circumstances and faces economic chaos, and enterprise bargaining will keep many workers in their jobs. Unemployment is rising in Victoria and many workers are losing their jobs. Importantly, many of them, like those at the SPC factory in Shepparton, simply want to be able to keep their jobs. If that means there has to be a trade-off, that they have to work a four-day week or change their working arrangements, why should the employer and the employee not sit down and agree on new arrangements for a specific period so that the workers can retain their jobs and their families can be in receipt of the workers' wages. Enterprise bargaining should be part of any industrial relations legislation in this State. Members of the opposition have heard a lot from honourable members opposite about the workers here and the workers there. It is a fundamental right for people to work. While it is a fundamental right for them to join or not join an association, it is a right for them to work. There was a situation in the Hoechst Australia Ltd dispute in Victoria where some workers wanted to work and others did not. Those who decided they did not want to work were picketing the Hoechst premises in the western suburbs. The workers who wanted to work and who had the right to work were having to run the gauntlet of picket lines and receive police protection to carry out their jobs. That illustrates another fundamental flaw in this Bill: it provides no protection for a worker who wants to continue working. That is something else that should be part of any industrial relations legislation in Victoria. The opposition believes the Bill has major flaws that do not encourage workers to be productive. The Bill contains nothing to encourage workers and employers to work under a system of incentives, to have a better deal for themselves and to ensure that the company or business they work for prospers. It is the opposition's strong view that part of any industrial relations system in Victoria must have incentives for workers to improve productivity. I do not care whether it is a profit-sharing arrangement or a share purchase scheme. I have been involved in a share purchase scheme but any commitment that encourages workers not only to turn up on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

478 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Thursday to get their pay packets but also to have the attitude that they are part of an enterprise and that they are part of the action is necessary. Any industrial relations system in Victoria should have such a provision. The future coalition government will encourage in every possible way workers to be part of the action of the businesses where they work. 'No worker will go on strike against the business in which he has a piece of the action because he would be working against himself. No worker will have a bar of any unionist trying to encourage a worker to hurt himself. I have spelt out some positive aspects of where a coalition government will go in the future. It amounts to more than taking on the unions because the opposition strongly believes in the work ethic - that people should be able to work and should be given encouragement to work. I have come from a strong union background -- Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr PERRIN - We were the cream of the working class, not like the dregs of the middle class. That is the difference. What I have proposed is the sort of legislation Victoria needs. I am happy to go to an election on that platform, when I can say to Victorian workers, ''We will give you a job, you will not be forced to join a union, we will protect you if you do not join a union and we want you to be productive, and make Victoria a better State". Mr NORRIS (Dandenong) - I wish to make a brief contribution on the Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Labour for introducing this legislation because he has proved himself to be one of the great success stories of this government. He is straight-talking and respected by both sides of the fence - employers and employees. He has been very courageous and has shown he is a Minister completely on top of his portfolio. Yesterday the Minister even received grudging respect during the contribution of the honourable member for Ivanhoe; even members of the opposition must admit that the Minister has set a very high example. I commence by restating what this Bill is all about. The main aim is to bring Victoria's laws into line with the Australian arbitration Act and to simplify unclear aspects of the existing legislation. It is important to stress again the importance of this Bill because after listening to contributions from the other side it is obvious that the coalition has painted itself into a corner. The Leader of the Opposition shot his mouth off early in the piece, during the heady days of euphoria. He was going to block "this and that" and in this instance has incurred the wrath of the employer organisations. They have met urgently, secretly and publicly, to try to talk him around but I suppose the Leader of the Opposition has shown his achilles heel on this measure and has refused to back down because he sees that as a form of weakness. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 479

1 see it as a form of strength if you are prepared to say, "I made a boo-boo, I made a big mistake and I will rethink my position". The contributions yesterday and today have underlined that point. Honourable members opposite have thrashed around in their convoluted contributions trying to justify the difficult position they have been forced into by their Leader.

It is patently obvious that honourable members opposite are not really speaking from the heart. The honourable member for Bulleen told us he came from the cream of the working class and not from the dregs of the middle class; his contribution was an example of that fact because it was full of rhetoric and had little substance. Mr Steggall - And this is different? Mr NORRIS - I am not saying that any of my contributions have a lot of substance but I endeavour to speak from the heart. If I have any attributes - and that is something that could be held up to some form of doubt - I understand what the ordinary person is thinking. I disagree with the point made by the honourable member for Bulleen that the opposition will tell workers "this, that, and everything else", and that they will follow the opposition like sheep.

When the results of this debate are made public - and certainly 1 will make many of the contributions public in my electorate - any members of the working class who may be feeling temporarily disaffected with Labor will flock back to my party in droves because the opposition suggests in this instance nothing more than the old days of confrontation and chaos that were rejected by the electorate before 1982. In other words, the nine years in opposition have taught the coalition parties nothing regarding industrial relations.

The contribution by the honourable member for Warrandyte was typical of the very bitter and bile laden contributions. His contribution contained not one positive aspect apart from being full of whole or halftruths. It was a very sour confrontationist contribution.

For argument's sake, he highlighted statements as fact - and I shall not call it a "lie" because you, Mr Speaker, will say that is unParliamentary - but his contribution was full of untruths. He said Victoria had the highest unemployment rate in Australia but that is simply not true. That is the sort of untruth that is continually pedalled by members of the opposition and the public swallow it.

The public finds it hard to believe that Victoria has the second lowest unemployment rate in Australia but that is the fact. Victoria has the highest per capita income in Australia, and people find that hard to believe. The honourable member for Warrandyte was full of doom and gloom.

I also remind members of the opposition that unemployment rates are unacceptably high all over Australia and the Western World. They may be unacceptably high in this State but Victoria now has 35 000 fewer unemployed than when Labor came to office in 1982. Honourable members opposite conveniently forget that fact. INDUSTRIA L RELATIONS BILL

480 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

The House has heard contributions from the opposition side about the Bill that are not the Costello-Kroger ethics of the new right - they are old shibboleths of the old right. That is what is depressing while listening to the old jargon being pushed out. There is nothing new in their credo. For nine years I have sat opposite and have come to realise the opposition has learned nothing in that time regarding industrial relations. That is most depressing. The Bill is important because Australia is in a recession. The Western World is in a recession. The United Kingdom has an even deeper recession under its conservative government with unemployment rates out of control and interest rates continuing to rise. That has come about under the great Thatcher regime that many of the new right­ the Costellos and the Krogers - want to emulate. The United States of America has a much deeper recession than we have in this country. We are isolated from the mainstream of world happenings. We are myopic and looking inwards. The doom and gloom merchants on the other side of the House exacerbate that position. The honourable member for Ivanhoe is an extremely nice person to meet socially over a cup of tea in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms but his contribution to the debate was extremely depressing. He bucketed the employers group asking, 'What do they know?" He bucketed the people who have bankrolled his party from the moment of its inception. He asked, 'What would they know about earning a quid in the real world?" He was referring to the employers' associations that his party has stood for and espoused since Bob Menzies was a boy! He said the employers know nothing about industrial relations because they have never earned a quid in their lives. He stood like a mouthpiece or acolyte, for Mr Boyle, the National Director of the Australian Small Business Association. He said, "Times have changed from when employers did cosy deals with the unions. This is a different set of rules. The times have changed. The days are gone when employees ruled the roost. From now on the bosses will rule the roost." Enterprise bargaining is the new buzz word. You enter into cosy deals with your employer and your employer will call the shots. The honourable member for Preston has had people in his office, as have I, who have been unfairly dismissed, paid below award rates, or thrown out on the scrap heap when their bosses rejected their cosy agreements. Honourable members will see the chaos that is caused when the book is thrown away. Electorate offices will be full of angry disenfranchised employees. I only wish I were staying in Parliament. The honourable member for I vanhoe said the small business person was going to set the rules. I shall tell honourable members about that organisation. It will never be satisfied and if the Liberal Party falls into the trap of trying to satisfy Mr Boyle it will be taking on Jumbo the Elephant because it is impossible to satisfy him or his members. They were never satisfied when we had the boom times in this State. They were whingeing and moaning and they will continue do so no matter who is in power. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 481

Many of the members in Mr Boyle's association are people who do not deserve to succeed in business. Victoria does not have the highest bankruptcy numbers. The Small Business Development Corporation put out two reports, one a month or so ago, that said small business failures and bankruptcies did not have anything to do with the government of the day but were to do with the incompetence of the small business persons. I suggest that people do not spend their lump sums going into businesses, setting up delicatessens, craft shops or manufacturing plastic coathangers. Mr Boyle's association is made up of people who ought not to be in business but who want to be their own bosses. They do not have sufficient liquidity, they have no accountancy methods and no business plans. They fail but they continue to whinge and moan. The Liberal Party is going to throw the fate of the average worker to these people. Where is its compassion? We now have checks and balances and I urge the opposition parties not to throw out the baby with the bath water. The Bill sets the baseline and the rules. We must all abide by the rules. Mr Maclellan - Except for Mr Halfpenny! Mr NORRIS - I shall ignore that interjection because it was disorderly. The honourable member for Ivanhoe said, ''No Victorian will be shoved or stood over by a union". He said that that power will be transferred to the bosses. In other words, he does not want the unions standing over and shoving employers around. He wants the employers to be able to do that. A middle path is contained in the legislation, which has checks and balances that are necessary for industrial sanity. The honourable member for Ivanhoe extolled the virtues of the Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner. Last week I was in New South Wales. Mr Lieberman - So was I! Mr NORRIS - Did you read the newspaper report in which Nick Greiner admitted that his government was not immune from the recession. A couple of months earlier he had made a ridiculous statement about his government being recession proof. However, the recession is quickly catching up with the Greiner government. It might have been slower to affect it but it is happening. When one examines the last unemployment figures one will note that the increase in unemployment figures in New South Wales is twice as high as elsewhere. I refer now to a provision that I will defend to the barricades and that is: compulsory unionism. It is an absolute must in our system. Division 6 is extremely generous. The honourable member for Hawthorn spent some time attacking the clause but it cannot be much fairer than to contain a provision for conscientious objection to belonging to a union. One has a right not to belong to a union so long as an equivalent fee is paid into the fund and the employee obtains an exemption certificate. That is fair. The honourable members for Hawthorn and Bulleen ask why they must pay a penalty? If they want to share in the benefits obtained by workers who have fought for gains and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

482 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

conditions they must be members of the union. The honourable members want all the cream but do not want to be part of the process. What sort of Australians would take this view? They are people who feed off the bodies of their work mates who have fought and won conditions; they are parasites! The honourable member for Benambra is a fair man; I do not believe that in his heart of hearts he goes along with some of the statements made by members of the opposition about the provisions dealing with compulsory unionism. If you do not want to belong to a union, that is your right; but you must pay an equivalent amount of money to gain your exemption certificate. What is wrong with that? Myoid profession is a classic example of the reason we must have compulsory unionism. Maggie Thatcher endeavoured to abolish it in the United Kingdom but she met with bitter opposition. I belong to a profession where people would work for nothing to get their faces on television or to put themselves in front of prospective employers in the hope that they will be made famous. If ever there were a profession that needed compulsory unionism as a basis for proper wages and conditions, it would be the theatrical profession. Mr Micallef - Even Ronald Reagan was a member. Mr NORRIS - Exactly, he was a President of the Screen Actors Guild of America. I know no professions other than that job and the job I have now. If enterprise bargaining were introduced into the entertainment profession the industry would be devastated. Perfonners in productions would find themselves working for nothing. Mr Maclellan interjected. Mr NORRIS - There would be no professional perfonners in this country, because they would have to work for nothing. They could be forced to say, ''We don't want any wages; we'll pay you to be part of the show. We'll take a percentage of the box office but donate it back to your funds" . I was an official of Actors Equity for twenty years, and day after day during that time we fought against the sorts of things that would happen if the opposition had its way and the imprimatur were given to its industrial relations policies. God help the entertainment profession if that happened. We would have to fight tooth and nail to retain what we have. Per head of population Australia has the finest artistic profession in the world. We have a world-class arts scene and a vibrant and exciting profession that gives gainful employment to many people and brings tourists to this country. All that has occurred because we have been able to gain basic wages, standards and conditions that exist, for example, over the road at the Princess Theatre. Anyone who has seen the production of The Phantom of the Opera knows that it is better than any production one would see anywhere else in the world. According to Andrew Lloyd Webber, it is the best sung production of the opera he has heard. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 483

When I was a young actor such a production would have been full of imports from America and Britain, with Australians only making up the chorus. The cast of The Phantom of the Opera is entirely Australian because of a union that has fought for basic wages and conditions to provide our actors and actresses with the opportunity to work and further themselves in the profession.

I fully support the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on its introduction. I wish the Industrial Relations Bill a speedy passage. Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - I was interested to hear the opening comments of the honourable member for Dandenong, the first paragraphs of which were obviously written by the Minister for Labour. The honourable member then put a range of arguments, one of which concerned the importance of compulsory unionism, which is an interesting argument if one follows through his theory.

He said he believes in compulsory unionism; but then he said that he would be prepared to exempt anyone from membership of the union if he or she paid the money. So it seems the honourable member for Dandenong is not interested in union membership so much as the money gained from it.

One can only draw a parallel between the consequences of that argument and the latest move by the Federal government to outlaw advertising on the electronic media to see how important union membership has been as a fundamental source of finance for the Australian Labor Party.

That is one of a number of reasons why compulsory unionism is distasteful to a range of people. Many people in the work force do not necessarily want to vote Labor, or they might vote Labor but may not want to contribute to ALP campaigns.

Under compulsory unionism, with provided exemptions - that is, "provided we get the money" - union funds go directly to the ALP and to its candidates. I find the argument for compulsory unionism put by the honourable member for Dandenong in particular to be nonsensical. From what he said it appears compulsory unionism is all about money and not even about propping up the rapidly declining union membership the Labor Party professes to be concerned about. Much has been said about the opposition's stance on various Bills before the House. It has been implied that we are out of order in opposing a piece or pieces of legislation. But I put to the House that a fundamental responsibility of any opposition is to critically examine each Bill not only for its effects on the narrow group of people it might immediately affect but also for its consequences for the broad community -in other words, whether it is in the best interests of the whole community. It is absolutely fundamental that each piece of legislation that comes before the House is given such scrutiny.

Much has been said by members of the opposition about the current state of the Australian and Victorian economies, but because this Bill is before the Victorian Parliament I shall concentrate on how it affects Victorians. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

484 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

One of the fundamental issues in Victoria that must be addressed is industrial relations. We need to consider fundamental changes to a wide range of issues that affect industrial relations in this State if we are to change the direction of the economy and improve the health of the employment sector. I am one of a minority of speakers who brings to this debate the backgrounds of union membership and employer responsibility. The honourable member for Dandenong talked about members of the opposition not understanding industrial relations and never having earned a dollar. I can go back some time to the days when I was a member of the cold storage union. The benefits that were gained for people working in the sector of the industry controlled by the union were brought about through meaningful negotiations, taking into account the industry's ability to pay for the wage increases and the work practice changes, so that everything was kept in balance. That is what we should try to do whenever we debate legislation in this Parliament. Over time the union movement, led particularly by some of its more militant leaders, has been taken down the path of great change in industrial relations and in salaries and conditions. We have gone from a 4O-hour week to a 38-hour week - and, in some cases, a 35-hour week - and a 9-day fortnight. We have picked up all the benefits of public holidays and so on. However, somewhere along the line we failed to take note of the ability and importance of the employer in his payment responsibility, and that is where I start to differ very strongly from some of the views of the union movement. The union movement has achieved great things for the Australian work force. I will be the first to admit that: it has achieved many things and probably still does. I spent many years in a tyre service in the private sector which was served by the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia. I must say that that union conducted itself very responsibly in the negotiations and dealings that I had with it. However, unfortunately, the union movement has been taken along and branded or tarnished by a group of high-fliers who have had no real interest in the long-term benefits of the people they purport to serve. Unless we have a sector that can give people the opportunity to be gainfully employed and give our young people who are coming through the education system the opportunity to be gainfully employed and part of our community, we will fail. There are many examples where this has occurred. Mr Tanner interjected. Mr J. F. McGRATH - I take up the interjection of the honourable member for Caulfield who mentions Wally Curran. I would also include people like John Halfpenny and Norm Gallagher. These people have done enormous harm to this State by failing to address responsibly the issue of industrial relations. I often put to union people, who have seen dramatic changes to their awards over time, the following simple question: if you went to the same butcher 'shop every Friday night INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 485 with $40 and you knew you would walk away with $36 worth of meat each time, would you continue to support the same butcher? Of course the answer is no, because they would not be getting value for money. That is the whole issue with industrial relations. We must get value for money, and unless we are cognisant of the ability of the employer, in conjunction with the employee, to make a transaction that gives them both a justified reward for their investment, whether it be in money, kind or time, the system does not have balance. Victoria's system does riot have balance. There are many issues in the industrial relations area that are creating enormous problems. One of the great problems is the militancy of some of the unions in the way they go about achieving what was achieved in days gone by through meaningful negotiation. Mr Leighton - Which unions? Mr J. F. McGRATH - I shall talk about which unions. Let us talk about the Transport Workers Union of Australia. Let us talk about what the long remembered dispute over the Met scratch ticket did to Victoria. Last night I was travelling on a tram on which a lady was questioning the young tram conductor about the scratch ticket debacle. The young conductor, who would have been only in his early twenties, replied, "Those clowns up there on the government benches wouldn't listen to us". That was the terminology he used. Even twelve to fifteen months after that debacle it was still very clear in his mind. Victoria became the laughing-stock of not only Australia but the world. When there were tourists all around Melbourne taking photos and running at all angles down Bourke Street the trams were standing still, bumper to bumper. What a disgraceful impression of Victoria with which to send tourists back to their own countries! Mr Simmonds interjected. Mr J. F. McGRATH - Honourable members opposite have the audacity to talk about consultation. If the government had consulted with the appropriate union about the scratch ticket, it would never have got into the absolutely disgraceful and embarrassing situation in which it found itself. One has only to consider what occurred with the Hoechst dispute and the SPC -- Mr Leighton interjected. Mr J. F. McGRATH - The former member of the Hospital Employees Federation, No. 2 branch, interjects and says the unions were right again. What we saw in the case of SPC was a desperate attempt by employees to secure their future, but what happened? Red ragger Halfpenny wanted to sink it. Thank God that commonsense prevailed, because those people are still employed today; they are still part of the employment sector and economy of Victoria. Mr Leighton - What about their health? INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

486 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 20 March 1991

Mr J. F. McGRATH - I ask the honourable member for Preston: what about their health when they are unemployed, when they have a wife and three children to support? What about their health and the health of their families? What about the emotional instability and feeling of those people? The honourable member's interjection shows just how short-sighted the government is. I did not think the honourable member for Preston, with his background in the HEF, No. 2 branch, would be short of compassion for the people who were inflicted with the . absolute dominance of militant unionism. In fact, during this debate he said by interjection that he did not support compulsory unionism.

The interesting aspect is that unions have outstretched what was originally designed to be their role in the Victorian and Australian community. Their important role was to protect the workers, but some of them have lost sight of that fact and they have done great discredit to the union movement by doing so.

That is one of the reasons that the union movement is concerned about the drain in and loss of membership. One has only to examine the promotion that takes place to try to attract members to replace those who have resigned and to boost the declining membership, the target areas and the sorts of people that unions are using to try to attract members, to realise they are really worried about what is happening.

They can finger the people who are responsible for it. They have sat back and let those people work for so long doing what they wanted to do - while their wages continued to be paid uninterrupted, I might add, and while their company cars were still provided. While the workers from Hoechst, the tram conductors and others were battling from one week to the other at the offices of the Department of Social Security to try to get enough to survive during industrial disputes, these militant, dominant union leaders still enjoyed the same benefits they had enjoyed previously. Yet they now say they do not want secret ballots.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the SPC dispute if there had not been a secret ballot. That occurred at the initiation of the workers. We have secret ballots for all sorts of elections so why not have secret ballots to decide on whether to take strike action?

Mr Simmonds interjected.

Mr J. F. McGRATH - What is the government afraid of? Did it not have a secret ballot on 1 October 1988? Of course it had a secret ballot that brought honourable members like the honourable member for Reservoir back here. That was when the government deceived the Victorian public and was returned to government by default. A secret ballot was held on 1 October 1988, yet when we start to touch this sacred cow­ the union movement - that puts so much money into the Australian Labor Party, people suddenly want to have a different set of rules. As the honourable member for

Bulk-en sa:~ ,:?~rlier. tJ- 0 answer is that we should let the people of Victoria judge. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 487

If honourable members opposite are concerned and feel strongly about what the opposition spokesman for industrial relations has put as part of the coalition policy, let them go to the people of Victoria and ask them what they think and what they need. The answer will be clear. A range of reforms in industrial relations should be examined. The Bill goes to a few issues, but it does not deal with the fundamental issues. The waterfront provides a glaring example of what is occurring in industrial relations in this State and in Australia. Many changes need to be made to it. I shall briefly mention some statistics in relation to the waterfront. On an aggregate, to get one container through Melbourne's waterfront requires 103 to 107 paper chits or documents. If that is not bad enough, examine the productive level of Swanston Dock. Its annual production is 50 000 containers, but in Singapore, which uses similar equipment and the same types of containers, the annual production is 500 000 containers. What is the difference? It is not the technology, because it is basically the same in both ports. It is the industrial relations practices and the work practices and, perhaps, the work attitude of the people in both cities. The private sector that feeds off the wharf system and provides an important part of the mechanism of the wharf work, carting goods to and from it, endures a stand-down time at Webb Dock of between 3 and 5 hours. If one takes between 3 and 5 hours off every load that is taken out one sees that it obviously restricts the amount of time, the loads and the income that can be earned from the invesbnent that private companies have made. They are interesting statistics. Honourable members opposite might be interested in some further figures. Australia moves 11 containers an hour, Singapore moves 25 containers an hour and the port in Taiwan moves 30 containers an hour. Those countries have the same equipment and technology, but they have different work practices. One wonders why Victoria is on its knees! The mob opposite wonders why the coalition is no longer prepared to support mechanisms that merely prop up part of an industry and do nothing to address the fundamental issues that concern the people of Victoria and, in this instance, those affected by industrial relations! The honourable member for Dandenong attacked small businesses. He called them, paraphrasing his words, incompetent. What a disgraceful thing to be said by a member of Parliament who obviously has several small business operators in his electorate. The honourable member referred to bookwork and forward planning. I wonder if he has ever had dirt under his fingernails or realised that many small business operators have served their apprenticeship in the field they are working in and have done something that many people on the government backbench are reluctant to do: take a risk with their own money. The government takes plenty of risks with Victorian taxpayers' money. We have approximately a $50 billion-plus debt to prove that, but the members opposite do not take risks with their own money. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

488 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

There are many examples of people who have done what the honourable member for Dandenong said they should not do: that is, take their superannuation and long service leave entitlements and set themselves up in business. Those people have left the work force as strong union people and probably supporters of the Australian Labor Party. It is interesting to speak to people like that after they have been in the private sector for one or two years because their philosophy has changed and they believe there must be balance put back into industrial relations.

Mr Leighton - You are anti-union. Mr J. F. McGRATH - The honourable member for Preston says that I am anti-union. He obviously has not been listening because I said earlier that I have no argument with unions providing people have the choice - which I understand the honourable member for Preston supports -- of whether to be a member of a union. If a person chooses not to be a member of a union then we should not have the Clayton's exception and force that person to pay a membership fee that will go via the union to the Australian Labor Party to ensure that it has enough money for its election purposes. That is what it is all about. Mr Leighton interjected. Mr J. F. McGRATH - I take up the interjection of the honourable member for Preston, who said that they should go and negotiate their own pay. That is exactly what the opposition says. I thank the honourable member for that interjection. He has said exactly what the honourable member for Hawthorn has said, that employees should be able to negotiate their own pay. If that were the case employers and employees could examine how they are affected individually and they would not be dictated to by a central system. The industrial relations system allows people to withdraw their labour, which is fine, but it has taken away the rights of employers. If they want to dismiss an employee they have to go through tortuous procedures. The system should have balance. It is outrageous to force employers to be accountable when employees, public servants and bureaucrats are not accountable. It is impossible to get rid of members of the Public Service even if they are incompetent or lazy. The Labor Party supports that sort of behaviour. What a pack of wimps! The government is not accountable and is not prepared to report to the Victorian taxpayer, who pays our salaries. The honourable member for Dandenong referred to wage levels and said that Victoria had the highest per capita income of all Australian States. I direct to his attention the distribution of that income. I am sure that the Parliamentary Library could provide statistics that indicate that the higher salary levels are in metropolitan Melbourne. One of the reasons for the high distribution of salaries in the metropolitan area is because of the high wage structure of the so-called bureaucrats who earn large sums of money. They are not accountable and they can be shifted sideways but not out. Another reason is the union leaders who are paid with the funds of people who have no choice; they either payor they do not work. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 489

The salary level of country Victoria is way below the poverty level. Yet this government claims it has a mandate to govern for all Victorians. That is a load of rot. I have often said and I shall say it again: the majority of Ministers in the government would not know their way beyond the end of the tram tracks. They have never made the effort to get out and really talk to the people to find out what they are thinking or how they are hurting. Earlier in the debate an interjection was made that the electorate offices would be full when the coalition comes to power. It will not be the electorate offices of Labor members when the coalition comes to power becauSe there will not be many Labor electorate offices. The community is calling for change, not for change'S sake but because it is feeling the pinch. People cannot meet their mortgage repayments, their car repayments or do the nice little things that are good for families to be able to do. Those on double incomes are surviving. Those on anything less are not. That is a reflection on the government, it will go down in history because it has taken this State into that condition in about eight and a half years. Not all that many months ago Ministers ranted and raved about the wonderful economic pointers and performance of the government. We do not hear much of that these days. The dorothy dix questions are of a different flavour today. They are no longer about economic indicators; they do not relate to unemployment or to issues that are fundamental to the welfare of this State. The fundamental change needed in this State is in industrial relations. By that I do not mean tinkering at the edges to favour a small section of the community, but fundamental change so that industry can get on with doing what it does best: producing. Small business and employees can get on with doing what they do best. Collectively, industry, small business and employees in harmony can get Victoria going again. Nothing less will do it. This State is in crisis brought about by a whole range of government policies, not the least of them being industrial relations related. One has only to consider WorkCare that has had so drastic an impact on the community. It is interesting that points of order raised by government members have mentioned the wide-ranging debate. The Bill affects more than twenty different Acts in the Victorian statute. If we chose to touch on the impact of the Bill on those different Acts, the debate would indeed be wide ranging. The change we need in Victoria is directly related to industrial relations. Sure, other things, such as-interest rates, will affect us but the industrial' relations change will give the motor of this State the kick start it needs to get on with 'the business of producing and providing ongoing economic benefit for producers and retailers. That in turn will increase the employment opportunities of the Victorian public. It will also ensure high retention rates in our education system so that the products of the education system, the young people, graduate and are given the opportunity of being part of the work force and the community. It is imperative that they grow up feeling they are worthwhile citizens making their contribution to the State. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

490 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

In power the coalition will be committed to fundamental changes to industrial relations. Voluntary unionism must be one of those changes. If I were not convinced before, the argument [ heard earlier today about the exemption clause on compulsory unionism convinced me about voluntary unionism. I would never have thought I would hear that argument from the government side but, sure enough, that is where it came from.

When in power the coalition will look at the importance of industrial relations change in the context of all the people, not just a minute few whose backs are being scratched and who are free to rape this State through the various disputes and obstructions they have created over the past eight and a half years. If the government is really serious about giving Victoria a chance, it will give Victorians a chance and allow them to go to the polls and have their say on industrial relations and financial management. I believe the choice of the people will be clear. The government has proved it cannot make the tough decisions on issues such as industrial relations so it should go to an election and allow us to get on with the business of getting this State up and running again. Mr UEBERMAN (Benambra) - I do not intend to make a long speech because the issues have been addressed adequately by the honourable member for Hawthorn and support speakers on behalf of the coalition and also by government members who have clearly stated where they stand. One point that has been adequately made in the debate is that only an election will clear the air and that that election should be held as soon as possible so that Victorians will have the opportunity of determining the type of government they want for the next four years and beyond. They will also have the opportunity of making a judgment on the performance of the Labor government over the past eight years. The mismanagement, incompetence, havoc and tragic loss of resources that this State has suffered over the past eight years speaks for itself. The Premier has said she will not have an early election. She has made that judgment and is accountable for it. When the people have the chance to vote, they will assess that behaviour. The Bill gives the people of Victoria the opportunity of contrasting the policies of the Labor government with the alternative policies clearly enunciated by the coalition parties.

Without analysing every clause in the Bill I shall make these points: there is considerable evidence throughout Australia to support the notion put forward by the honourable member for Hawthorn on behalf of the coalition parties that the development of central controls on industrial matters is not productive in every case and is not beneficial to the nation or the State. Such controls unfortunately cause a club of people to develop who, by regular contact over many years - sometimes decades - put in place a system of controls and regulations that do not respond to the needs of the nation and which do not provide for flexibility, opportunity and the encouragement of enterprise.

Government should not be seen as the provider of everything. In a democracy the people must be responsible and accountable, and the government must be responsive to the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 491

needs of the people. If one reflects on what has happened with industrial relations in Australia one can find ample evidence that unions, individuals, employers and governments have lost out because of inflexible, unproductive and non-performing aspects of a system that has developed over many years and which the Bill seeks to enshrine in legislation and further institutionalise. Regrettably, there is still an opportunity to use the force of law to require people to join unions when they do not wish to do so. That is not acceptable. It is argued that a person can conscientiously object to joining a union. However, in reality that creates tensions and puts unfair pressure on people. It erodes the fundamental rights in which we all believe and for which our fathers fought in wars - the right of choice in a democracy. Why should someone have to be categorised as a conscientious objector? Why should that happen in a democracy? In a nation such as Australia it is fundamental that people should not have to go through such a process, but the Bill maintains that system. Clause 16 perpetuates the closed shop because it provides that a worker does not have the right to a hearing before the Industrial Relations Commission unless the worker is represented by a union. There are exceptions, but the exceptions included in clause 44 are inadequate from a democratic point of view. I want to know, both as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament, why a person's right to seek protection from the courts of law in this land should be conditional on that person being represented by a union. That should not be the case and that notion should be resisted at all costs. That is one of the reasons I look forward to an election campaign in which Victorians can hear debate on this matter from both sides and have explained to them why the coalition parties reject the Bill and want to offer legislation that recognises the rights of individuals. I well recall one of my children coming home after having applied for a part-time job while still at school. He was upset because he was told he could not get the job unless he joined the union. The employer had entered into an agreement with the union that no-one would be employed unless they belonged to the union. There is no free choice in that; there was no free choice for my son, who was only sixteen years of age at the time. He would not have got the job if he did not join the union, and a sixteen-year-old youth should not have to go through the nonsense of conscientio~sly objecting to becoming a member of a union, particularly when hundreds of other kids are seeking the same job. In such a case, the personnel manager would give the job to the one who would toe the line, and all kids would do that because they would all be keen to get the job. Why should young Australians have to face that sort of nonsense? It is repugnant that in 1991 Parliament is being asked to further institutionalise the sort of nonsense that is a blow to democracy. Plenty of examples exist of people being ostracised - it is happening more and more frequently under this government - because they have not joined unions. I know of a INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

492 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

major hospital in Melbourne where a number of people working in the medical records section who did not wish to join the relevant union were allegedly quarantined. Special partitions had to be built around them before the union would agree to allow that part of the hospital to function. That is a serious allegation and one that is absolutely true. It is a further example of what happens when this sort of nonsense is allowed to continue. I oppose the Bill, and I challenge the government to treat it as special legislation under the provisions of the Constitution Act, thus allowing the people of Victoria to make a judgment of me, my colleagues and our arguments on this matter. The people should make a determination about the sort of government they want, and they can judge me accordingly. I stand on the side of freedom of choice and association. If people want to join a union, good luck to them. I have no objection to that because I know of the good work unions do in many cases. However, I will not tolerate the thought that in 1991 people have to join unions or go through the nonsense of being conscientious objectors or suffer the indignity of being called scabs when they simply wish to work. It is time a strong stand was taken, and an election is the most refreshing thing that could be offered to the people. That is what the next months of debate in Victoria should be about. The opposition stands for democracy; the government has forgotten the meaning of it. Mr TANNER (Caulfield) - The coalition parties quite rightly reject the Bill. The community needs a new start and a new opportunity for industrial relations. When introducing the Bill the Minister for Labour said that its major purpose is to establish a new industrial relations system for Victoria. In reality the Minister and the government are offering more of the old, failed ways that have shackled the community to the downward spiral in the efficiency and productivity of the work force. The community needs the industrial relations initiatives spelt out by the honourable member for Hawthorn on behalf of the coalition parties. Despite the Minister's comments when introducing the Bill, in reality he is offering us nothing more than the old ways - an intensification of those ways that have failed our community, particularly over the past twenty years. Some honourable members, in their contributions to this debate, have talked about the tyranny of the bosses, and certainly that was a situation many years ago in Australia and in Victoria. However, in recent years we have seen the tyranny of the unions. We need a proper balance between both sides so that all members of the community, and particularly the employees, get a fair go so that we do not have unscrupulous bosses and avaricious union bosses fighting one another and using the community as pawns. We need to have a new system that places our community's future at the forefront. We need to realise that we cannot go on with the present system. The Minister is trying to protect the union movement despite movements in our society that are seejng union membership decline. As has been pointed out already approximately 40 per cent only of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 493 the work force now belongs to unions, and in actual fact in the private sector it is less than one third of the work force or only 32 per cent who belong to unions.!t has been projected that by the year 2010 the union membership in Australia could have fallen to between 10 and 20 per cent of the work force. Of course, if this Bill were passed we would not see a continuation of that trend. I do not say that because there is to be this fall in union membership that that is necessarily a good thing. I have worked in places where there have been unions and where there was no union, and it is much more comfortable to work in a place where there is a union to protect the employees, but we need a system in this community to ensure that some union bosses are not able to play havoc with the community's interests, and in particular the employees' interests. Mr Curran is a perfect example of that. We need a system where the interests of both the employers and the employees are treated equitably. The Minister has misled the community in claiming that with the Bill he proposes to establish a new industrial relations system in Victoria. But if we go down that path just for the academic exercise, presumably one would have expected on such an important measure that the Minister and the government would have sought a mandate from the Victorian public, but I do not believe that has occurred. Certainly some organisations have been consulted but the reality is that the general public has not been consulted. For instance, the trade unions represent less than 40 per cent of the work force, as I have already said. In that case they can hardly claim that they are the representatives of the total work force. Similarly with regard to employers I understand that approximately 85 per cent of the employers in this State employ fewer than 50 people, and although there are employer organisations, that 85 per cent of employers have not been fully appraised of the government's proposals. In saying that I mean no attack upon the employer associations; I have met many of the representatives of those employer associations over the years on other issues, and a number of them on this issue, and they have, to the best of their ability, represented their associations. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the general community is not au fait with the provisions of this legislation, and if it were, I have no doubt that it would reject them because the Minister is proposing a series of measures that this Minister and the previous Minister for Labour have attempted to introduce and pass through Parliament over the years. We are not seeing a series of new measures; we are seeing more of the old. The government has no mandate for the legislation as it had no mandate for the WorkCare situation. One will recall that coming up to the last State election the community and Parliament were all the time advised by the government and its Ministers that the WorkCare situation was on target. We found out how much on target it was! It was more than $3 billion in debt. Similarly with regard to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation there was no word from the government as to the dire straits that institution was in. Nor, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

494 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 unfortunately, did the community and Parliament have any idea of the dire straits our State Bank was in. One well remembers the government pledge with regard to restricting increased government charges. That pledge or promise has certainly been thrown out the window, yet today the Minister has said, in effect, that he has a mandate for this "revolutionary" change in industrial relations for Victoria.

He has no mandate the same as the government has no mandate to remain in office today. However, all of this is purely an academic exercise because the Minister, on behalf of the government, has not proposed a new industrial relations system for our community. It is more of the old to produce a package of measures that have been rejected by Parliament over recent years.

The most important measure relates to the establishment of the magistrates court. This proposal has twice been before Parliament and twice rejected, and quite rightly so. The magistrates court proposal is wrong in principle. We require a legal system in this community that is equitable among all and that ensures that all people in the community are governed and treated by the same laws.

The magistrates court, in time, must lead to a divergence in the provision of law in our community. It must lead to a division in the way the law is treated and meted out to members of the community.

Similarly we find another attempt by the government in this allegedly 'new proposed industrial relations system to have subcontractors liable to be deemed employees by the Industrial Relations Commission.

Similarly we have another attempt to leave open the possibility of the introduction of portability of long service leave. Also we see another attempt, through the back door, to introduce compulsory unionism, although this time we are being told that there is provision for conscientious objection.

In reality, rather than the principle of compulsory unionism with the possibility of conscientious objectors opting out there should be the principle introduced into any industrial relations system in Victoria of the freedom of association; the right to join if one so wishes.

What we need in Victoria is a new industrial relations system, not more of the old. We need proposals such as those of the honourable member for Hawthorn with regard to enterprise bargaining with the ability for more flexible hours and broader job classifications to be introduced into individual workplaces.

We need the provisions he has proposed in relation to secret ballots so that we can minimise the discomfort not only to the community but also to the workers and their families. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 495

A principle of freedom of association must be introduced so that people can join a trade union if they wish, or they can choose not to join a trade union. If honourable members really believe in democracy, such a proposal could not be disagreed with. Any industrial relations system introduced into our community must ensure that everyone is subject to the same law. It must not be left open - as would be the case if the proposed industrial magistrates court were established - that not just the possibility but the probability would be established that a different law would apply for different people. The industrial relations system of this State needs a new government that will introduce a new way, a new vision, a new opportunity and a new start for the community as we go into the 21st century, to restore the standard of living once enjoyed in Victoria. Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I support the comments made by the lead speaker for the opposition, the honourable member for Hawthorn, in opposing the Industrial Relations Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to your contribution to the debate. I was extremely surprised that a person of your intellect and ability spoke like someone who was looking at the proposed legislation through rose-coloured glasses. Some of the comments you made were not accurate and unfortunately presented a picture of a person who does not have an understanding of people involved in business. Your speech was made from the point of view of someone who had never been in business and so had never gained a true understanding of it. On many occasions I have referred to honourable members on the government benches - apart from yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker - who have made contributions to debates on particular pieces of proposed legislation relating to business and industry and their development in the State of Victoria. I have said that one needs to have been in business to understand it. I have said also that one does not understand business if one has never been in business with money invested and having to live through the trials, traumas and difficulties of operating a business, particularly a small business. I have said, too, that one cannot understand business unless one has tried to ensure the profitability of a business so that one could continue to employ those who work in the business. I suggest that a significant number of honourable members who occupy the government benches in this House should gain that experience. They should be sent out to gain an understanding of business. If any honourable member has not been in business, he or she should be sent out of the Parliament and put into business to discover how a business operates so that he or she may gain a true understanding of what it is to be in business. I suggest that most government members have not been in business and do not understand how to operate a business. If they went into business they would go broke. On many occasions I have said also that I would not like to go into business with, for instance, the current Treasurer of the State of Victoria - or, for that matter, the former Treasurer of the State of Victoria. I have suggested that if I were in business with either INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

496 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 20 March 1991 of those two gentlemen that business would go broke, not because of my understanding or input but because of their lack of understanding of what happens to people in business. I suggest that the current Minister for Labour is genuine in his desire to get business operating effectively and profitably, employing people and providing good industry standards for people to work under. He is putting in a lot of work as the Minister responsible for this area, but I suggest also that the Minister for Labour should go out and run a business for a while so that he can gain a good understanding of what it means to be in business. He should understand both sides of the issue. He should be able to consider matters not only as a member of Parliament, from his experience in his previous occupation and from an understanding of the union movement, but also from the position of understanding the work of the people who create the wealth for the State of Victoria - that is, the people in business. People who have their money invested in business and know what it is like to press for profitability so that they can continue to employ the people they have employed in their businesses are the people who are creating the wealth for Victoria. On various occasions when I have spoken about the need for employment opportunities to be created and retained through support for and encouragement of business by the government, honourable members on the government benches have interjected. The same response has come when I have suggested that business needs to be profitable. They have said, 'Now Jasper is coming out in his true colours". I am happy to indicate that I have grown up in business in private enterprise. This State would prosper with the effective operation of private enterprise, by businesses being profitable and providing employment. Any business in Victoria that is not profitable goes out of business. The people running the business become bankrupt and as a consequence they do not provide any employment. In the past this government sought to employ more and more people. Although in recent times a change has occurred in the government's employment policy, on the figures supplied to me it appears that the number of people working for the government in the State of Victoria has increased more than those employed by the other States combined. I return to the point I made earlier: if businesses are not profitable they cannot provide employment and the government cannot employ everyone. The wealth of government is created through taxes imposed on the people of Victoria, and they are employed through private enterprise. Mr Deputy Speaker, in your contribution you mentioned the Australian Small Business Association, and particularly Mr Boyle. I do not always see eye to eye with Mr Boyle on some of the comments he makes on behalf of that organisation. However, he represents an organisation that has been developed by and relies for its continued operation on the support of small businesses in Victoria. Certainly some small businesses are going broke and the people running them are going out of business. That is one of the difficulties of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 497 operating a business - that things might not work. However, you suggested that some of these businesses did not deserve to succeed and that the people running them did not deserve to be in business. I suggest that that is the basis of a private enterprise economy: people go into business to have a go, to invest their money, to employ a number of people, and hopefully at the end of the day to have something left over so they can show that they have been profitable in operating a business. I agree that a number of people who go into business should perhaps have better training before doing so. I support the activities of the Small Business Development Corporation that seeks to assist people who go into business in Victoria and help them operate through good management and so employ people and achieve a level of profitability at the end of the day. I agree also with your comment that some people need assistance and a small number of people in small business go into liquidation and bankruptcy because they are not qualified to operate a business. However your comments were out of place in that you put everyone into that category and said that those who have gone into liquidation or become bankrupt should not have been in business and did not deserve to succeed. I suggest that any person who goes into business and shows some entrepreneurial drive should be rewarded; people who develop their businesses and provide employment in an effort to improve this State's economic climate should be supported. Mr Deputy Speaker, some of the bankruptcies that have occurred in Victoria are the direct result of Federal and State Labor government policies. In your contribution to this debate you appeared to be saying it was all the fault of business and nothing to do with governments. I suggest you should go out and talk to people in business to obtain a true understanding of what it means to be in business. Mr Gude - Nobody on that side would know! Mr JASPER - The honourable member for Hawthorn is correct. Few members of the government have a business background. They would not be able to talk to businessmen and understand what is happening. The problems created for many Victorian businesses are the direct result of policies of the Federal and State governments. Governments should examine their policies if they want businesses to operate and expand in today's economic climate. Even the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, had some understanding of the point I am trying to make. Although he was a Labor Premier and strongly supported the views of the Labor movement, he also had some understanding of what businessmen were trying to do for Victoria. He knew that was where the real development would take place. It will not be done by governments but by government policies directed at assisting private enterprise in the development of this State. On many occasions the former Premier told the House that his government wanted to kick-start the economy. Unfortunately things went off the rails and enormous losses 77597/91-17 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

498 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 were experienced by private organisations and the government. But the intention was there. Victoria will be developed through private enterprise and using the expertise that can be found only in private enterprise. That expertise must be brought into play when considering the types of development we want for this State. For many reasons I do not support the Industrial Relations Bill. Apart from the objectives provided in the measure, Victoria is crying out for restoration of a truly productive industrial climate. The honourable member for Hawthorn referred to that objective and recognised that that can happen only through industry and business. Employment, investment and higher standards of living depend on rising productivity as a result of encouraging private enterprise to undertake appropriate development. Members of the coalition believe the Bill will not assist in the development of Victoria. In its objectives there is no mention of productivity or flexibility for enterprise-based agreements to improve that productivity. Surely productivity is the key to our success. It goes hand in hand with the ultimate aim of being in business to be profitable. Instead the Bill is about consolidating our failing dispute settlement system. The powers of the Industrial Relations Commission system will be strengthened by the proposed legislation. Commissioners are to be supported by a new level of industrial relations magistrates. These magistrates will be required to have industrial relations expertise, which means they will be drawn from the same failing industrial relations system. Worse still, the Bill widens the jurisdiction of current industrial relations professionals, which will be to the detriment of Victoria. The proposed Industrial Relations Act will extend the reach of these people and will reduce the impact of restrictions that should be imposed on unions. I listened with a great deal of interest to the recent statement by the Prime Minister of Australia about the future development of industry in this country. I suggest the Federal Labor government got it wrong the first time and has repeated its mistake. Australia has had a high interest rate economy for some time, but all the Federal Treasurer can say is, "I am not in the business of being a good fellow; I do not have to be accepted by employers and business as doing the right thing so long as it gets the Australian economy going where I believe it should go". I suggest that the Federal Treasurer is on the wrong track. A high interest rate economy has been one of Australia's greatest obstacles. I return to the main premise of the Prime Minister's argument. He suggests that Australia will experience more of the same industrial relations policy and our high interest rate economy will continue for some time. He said the Federal government would force Australian industries to accept lower tariff protection and lower quotas. That is not the way Australia should be heading. Although that might be a suitable long-term aim, Australia will not have a lower cost economy until it tackles some of the important issues facing this country. The Prime Minister was putting the cart before the horse in seeking to reduce tariff protection. It is no good reducing tariff protection if Australia has a high cost economy INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 499 and cannot compete on the world market because of that high cost economy. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer seem to have a lack of understanding of Australian business. It would be much wiser for them to tackle the important issues facing industry. Why do we not return to a 40-hour week for everyone? Why not remove the 17.5 per cent holiday leave loading which has been one of the greatest disasters for Australian business? Many workers recognise that as being one of the problems that has created our high cost economy. Why not abolish penalty rates until a person has worked a 40-hour week? Penalty rates are killing industry because they are applied on an around-the-dock basis. Honourable members have only to consider the high costs applying to hospitals and other State institutions as a result of penalty rates being paid to workers. If everyone had to work a 4O-hour week before moving on to overtime there would be a reduction in penalty rates applying to many workplaces. In the United States of America employees work 40 hours a week and then go on to penalty rates. In Australia some people work odd hours and night shifts and receive more in penalty rates over two or three nights than do employees who work a normal Monday to Friday during the day. A husband and wife could plan around their family the days or nights they wish to work. A person who wanted to play golf on Mondays and Tuesdays instead of Saturdays and Sundays because the golf courses were less congested could work Safurdays and Sundays to suit himself. Why not move towards more acceptable work practices? Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Federal and State Labor governments should be tackling these issues, especially the high cost of operating businesses in Australia. They should tackle the unacceptable work practices that have developed over a long period. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Warrnambool referred to the problems Australia faces on its wharves and the number of containers handled per hour in the ports of Melbourne and Singapore. I have been advised that Bunge (Australia) Pty Ltd . was required to shift bagged wheat to the Middle East. It was cheaper to load the wheat in bulk at Fremantle, send it on to Singapore, offload it, bag it, and then send it on to the Middle East. That whole process was much cheaper than bagging the wheat in Australia. That is hard to believe but an executive of the Bunge company confirmed with me that was the situation. They could handle the wheat more cheaply by sending it in bulk to Singapore, off-loading it, bagging it back onto the ship while the ship waited and delivering it to the Middle East than we could provide it bagged in Australia, on the ship and direct to the Middle East. That sort of situation cannot be tolerated. Wangaratta, in my electorate, will come under increasing pressure with the proposal to reduce tariff protection to textile industries in Australia. Wangaratta has 1200 people employed in textile industries. I suggest the Prime Minister would have gained a lot of kudos and acceptance if he had said the Federal government was going to tackle some of the unacceptable work practices and the high cost of production in Australia rather than indicating it was going INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

500 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 to reduce tariff protection for the textile industries. I suggest those industries will not continue operating in Australia but will produce offshore and bring the products back to Australia. The supervisor of a hostel operating in Wangaratta gave me the example of a chef who is employed pennanently with the organisation but works part-time three days a week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. As Christmas Day 1990 fell on a Tuesday the chef in question was paid time and a half for Christmas Day, on which she did not work. The person who worked as chef on Christmas Day was paid two and a half times the normal rate and has since said, "I will not work next year; I would rather have Christmas Day off as I can get time and a half as a part-time employee for not working." That sort of anomalous situation makes one cynical about the whole exercise and about this proposed legislation. That is the sort of thing that should be tackled by the government - knocking out unacceptable work practices!

The Minister for Labour said the Bill had been developed by the government in consultation with union and employer organisations. I recognise employer organisations represent employers across Victoria but my experience suggests that many of those organisations often do not truly represent the people who are actually employing people in Victoria. The people working in those organisations are themselves employed; they are employees of the employer organisations.

I am not saying anything in this House that I have not mentioned in discussions with these organisations. I have told them they should be truly trying to represent the employers of the State of Victoria. The honourable member for Hawthorn is nodding his head because he understands the point I am making.

I think on occasions the people working within the employer organisations have been conned by the government and that is why many people believe that the Australian Small Business Association, the organisation with which Mr Boyle is involved, is a better representative of business and industry: because it truly represents small business and small business operators are the spokespersons for that organisation.

I do not always see eye to eye with the comments made by Mr Boyle, but I recognise that his organisation attempts to represent small business. I question whether the organisations on which the Minister hangs his hat, in relation to the Bill are truly representative of the employers they try to represent. I suggest problems have arisen because the people representing the employer organisations are themselves employees of those organisations.

I refer to the Minister's second-reading speech and quote from the last paragraph, where he said:

Finally, I wish to emphasise to the House that the Bill has the strong support of the Victorian Confederation of Employer Associations and the Victorian Employers Federation (VEF). These associations are the principal employer associations in the State of Victoria representing the vast majority of Victorian employers. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 501

I suggest that while they represent the employee organisations they may not truly represent employers in Victoria. The Bill before Parliament is a major reform and that is what concerns me. The government says it has the employers on side and, worse still, the Minister in his second-reading speech said:

The Bill has also been accepted as a package by the union movement. I became worried when that sentence appeared in the second-reading speech and there was no growling or opposition from Mr Halfpenny. I wonder how much of what it wanted the union movement is getting, which may be to the detriment of employers in Victoria.

Mr Gude interjected.

Mr JASPER - Mr Halfpenny certainly has a lot of clout. I am disappointed to say that in this Parliament. If Mr Halfpenny says this is good legislation or does not oppose it there has to be more in it for the union movement than we can glean by reading the Bill, without going into the detail and involvement the Minister has had with the union movement while claiming to have all employer organisations on side concerning the legislation.

It worries me to think that situation has developed, because the employers are the people in a private enterprise situation that will create the wealth for Victoria. Governments ha ve to recognise that employers will not continue to be attacked by State and Federal governments as they are being at present. I will not go into that aspect again. I believe the Minister for Labour genuinely sees the legislation as a move to provide better conditions for employees. Employers I speak with are clear that they should be providing a fair day's pay for a fair day's work - that is the whole basis of their operation. Employers understand that there need to be appropriate conditions of work to encourage people to work effectively. I am not opposed to trying to ensure that we have the best conditions possible for people to work under. However, with unacceptable work practices and changes which will increase the cost of operation of business, employers will not stay in business; they will go to other States. Many businesses are leaving Victoria and say it is not worth working under the conditions applying in Victoria. There is also the situation at SPC Ltd of an agreement between the employer and employees as a result of the difficult conditions facing the fruit industry. Mr Halfpenny would not accept that agreement because it was breaking down his power base and the conditions unionists have worked for. Today we cannot live with that and accept practices which might have been acceptable in years gone by. Let us get back to reality, to a situation of greater productivity encouraged by business being able to negotiate with employees in the workplace; not a INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

502 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

situation where employers are attacked by unions and government until they say it is not worth being in business. I understand the concerns expressed by employers I talk to, and from my own understanding of what happens in business today I suggest this legislation should not be accepted by Parliament. From the opposition displayed by so many honourable members in this House I know that the Bill will be rejected in another place, and rightly so, and will not proceed as regulation, which would not be in the best interests of the people and the State of Victoria. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - We have heard a number of opposition speeches in the past week but we have heard hardly one word on this Bill other than from the honourable member for Hawthorn. He went into some detail on the Industrial Relations Bill and, although I do not agree with most of what he had to say, the honourable members for Springvale and Mitcham pointed out where he was wrong and at least he addressed the Bill. Unfortunately the honourable member for Ivanhoe simply changes the title on the top of his speech and gives us the same diatribe every time he addresses the House, as did the last speaker, the honourable member for Murray Valley, who always watches the clock to make sure he uses up his 30 minutes. The core issues of this Bill have been well covered by the honourable members for Springvale, Mitcham, Preston and Dandenong. They were issues concerning the Industrial Magistrates Court, the conciliation and arbitration boards, unfair dismissals and enterprise bargaining, which we have heard much about. I shall deal firstly with the Industrial Magistrates Court. As opposition members have said, the proposal for such a court was first put up in 1988. It was rejected in that year, as it is rejected now and always seems to be rejected when it comes up. Let us reflect upon where the idea for the Industrial Magistrates Court came from. It did not come from Neil Pope, or my predecessor in this portfolio, Steve Crabb. It came from a former President of the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission, Mr Keith Marshall, who was appointed by Mr Jim Ramsay when he was the then 'Minister of Labour and Industry. Keith Marshall made a report to the government on the need to set up an Industrial Magistrates Court. It was proposed that the industrial magistracy would deal with two issues: award compliance and occupational health and safety. The proposal was rejected in 1988 by the honourable member for Hawthorn and the opposition because of a provision allowing unions to take prosecutions for award breaches. In 1988 the main opposition to the proposal related to the issue of unions being able to prosecute for award breaches.

In discussions between the employers, the trade union movement and the government, the provision was amended and this Bill does not carry the provision that was of most concern to members opposite in the 1988 Bill- the concern that the Industrial Magistrates Court would allow unions to prosecute for award breaches. The provision INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday. 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 503

was changed so that that could not occur; it would allow only the initiation of proceedings. However, there is still opposition to the Industrial Magistrates Court. We have heard it said that we did not have a mandate for such a provision. The proposal was rejected in 1988 for one reason, and it is rejected today because the opposition claims the government does not have a mandate. The opposition cannot have it both ways. I believe the honourable member for Hawthorn is in agreement with the decision of the government to abolish the conciliation and arbitration boards. Those boards underpin the 1979 Act. We could not amend that Act by abolishing the conciliation and arbitration boards because they underpin the whole operation of that Act. The honourable member for Hawthorn, all State employer groups and a number of unions believe it is time to get rid of the wages boards. Wages boards do not exist in any other mainland State in Australia; they were done away with years ago. They exist only in Tasmania. The abolition of the conciliation and arbitration boards would free up the industrial relations system in this State and bring it into line with the Federal industrial relations system, enabling it to set up panels such as those in the Federal system. The third area of contention, which we did not hear much about from opposition members, relates to unfair dismissal. It has been a contentious area ever since unfair dismissal procedures were put in place. It is true that the honourable member for Hawthorn touched on the issue of unfair dismissals; he was the only member of the opposition to touch on the Bill. But once again there is agreement between the union movement and employer groups on the need to address the problem of the number of unfair dismissal applications being made to the commission that are clogging up the system. With a change in emphasis, what has occurred? Managers are using that system, not for the purpose of reinstatement, but for the purpose of getting compensation from the unfair dismissal legislation. It is not there for that reason, and that is why the Bill removes the right of managers to apply under the unfair dismissal provisions. The provision was set up for people whose employment is covered under the jurisdiction of State awards and, as such, it is there for the purpose of deciding whether someone should be reinstated, not for the purpose of someone making an extra quid. Unfortunately we did not hear comments from the opposition on that issue, except from the honourable member for Hawthorn. We heard a lot about enterprise bargaining. Let us put enterprise bargaining in the context of the way it is being debated in Australia at present. We believe in enterprise bargaining. We embrace the concept of enterprise bargaining, but it is not the enterprise bargaining that is being put forward by opposition members and the conservatives throughout Australia. It is not unfettered enterprise bargaining as occurs in the United Kingdom, a system that has brought about an expansion of wages and where militant unions are the ones who receive the benefits and the moderates receive nothing at all, because enterprise bargaining in an unfettered way as it has been put forward by the conservatives in this country produces that result each and every time. That is the result INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

504 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 it has produced in the United Kingdom where wage and salary increases are currently at 15 per cent. The salary increases that have occurred in the United Kingdom with unfettered enterprise bargaining are in excess of what is occurring i~ Australia. Enterprise bargaining should be put in place under the auspices of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission. It should have the ability to allow certified agreements - agreements that are certified by either the State or Federal tribunal, depending on the issues involved. This Bill allows for that form of enterprise bargaining, which is supported by this State government, the Federal government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That form of enterprise bargaining is being facilitated in this Bill by the abolition of the wages board system. That abolition will free up the process so that the employer will be able to have a speedy decision made on the setting up of an award. That is not possible at the moment under the present conciliation and arbitration board system because the present commission does not have the ability to have commissioners sitting alone determining award matters. The enterprise bargaining provisions of the Bill will also allow individual employers to have a recognised status so that employers will be able to embark upon obtaining certified agreements. The third ingredient of this area of the Bill is that the process of enterprise bargaining that will be provided for is the process as the government sees it, not the unfettered enterprise bargaining put forward by members of the opposition. Much has been said about the negotiations that took place over some eighteen months. Primarily, those negotiations were with Russell Bancroft of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, Frank Hayes of the Miscellaneous Workers Union and Barry Watchorn and Graham Sapwell of the Chamber of Manufactures, and Greg Johns of the Victorian Employers Federation. In conjunction with the government these people were able to negotiate a Bill which is unique in industrial relations. All the major employer groups and unions and the government came together with a package which is agreed to by all parties. It will deliver a much more flexible system - one that will be able to produce the industrial harmony this State deserves. It is a matter which has been touched on by members of the opposition. I remind honourable members of the figures put forward by the honourable member for Springvale when he spoke on the Bill. We are told that in New South Wales the industrial relations system is working well. In reality, in excess of 600 000 working days were lost between November 1989 and November 1990. In Victoria some 350 000 working days were lost - almost half the number in New South Wales. That State is supposedly the epitome of industrial harmony. That is industrial chaos! That is what the opposition would create by way of the supposed industrial relations policy it put forward. It is a paltry twelve paragraph policy. Honourable members should consider the industrial system under the last Liberal government in Victoria. From 1972 to 1981, 832 working days were lost per 1000 employees each and every year for nine years. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 505

Under this government the figure is 200, which is four times less than the figure of days lost per 1000 employees under the Liberal government's confrontationist attitude. While the opposition figures were four times the present government's figures, admittedly there was industrial unrest through Australia, but even if one considers all the figures, when the Liberal Party was in power, the figure of industrial days lost was 23 per cent above the national average.

Since this government has been in office, Victoria is 13 per cent below the national average, and yet we are told this is the State of strikes. The statistics do not bear that out. The reality is that the Bill was negotiated with employer groups over a considerable time. As the honourable members for Mitcham, Springvale and Preston pointed out, there was overall agreement. Only one employer group came out in opposition to the Bill: the Australian Small Business Association. That association has never had membership of one conciliation and arbitration board. It is not a player within the system. It is naive when it comes to the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission because it has never been a player in the system.

In recent times the only thing the association has come out with, which coincides with the time it was saying the government was wrong with its Industrial Relations Bill, is the question of how it could put up with this Leader of the Opposition. It went into great diatribes as to how the honourable member for Burwood should be the leader of the party. I do not agree with the association on that one, and neither does the honourable member for Hawthorn, by the look on his face.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Minister must have some clairvoyant talents that have escaped the notice of other honourable members. He should not seek to put into the record what he believes to be my views or anybody else's views. I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is straying well away from the Bill and I ask you to bring him back to it.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I accept that.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order.

I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. As there is not an absolute majority of the members of the House present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Required number of members having assembled in Chamber:

House divided on motion: CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

506 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Ayes, 45 Mr Andrianopoulos MrsHill MrRowe MrBaker MrsHirsh MrSandon Mr Barker (Teller) Mr Jolly MrSeitz Mr Batchelor MrKennan MrSercombe MrCain MrKennedy MrsSetches MrCole MsKimer Mr A.J. Sheehan MrCrabb Mr Leisd1ton Mr F.P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham Mr Md:::utcheon MrShell Mr Dollis MrMcDonald MrSimmonds MrsEmst MrMathews MrSpyker MrFordham MrMicallef Mr Thomson (Teller) MrsGarbutt MrNorris MrTrezise MrGavin MrPope DrVaughan Mr Hamilton MrsRay MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRoper MrsWilson Noes, 34 Mr Bildstien MrJa~ Mr Pescott MrOark Mr Jolln MrPlowman MrColeman MrKennett MrReynolds MrCooper Mr Leisdl Mr Richardson MrDelzoppo Mr Lie6erman Mr E.R. Smith Mr Dickinson Mr J.F. M<.Crath Mr I.W. Smith Mr Elder (Teller) MrMcNamara MrSteggall MrEvans Mr Maclellan MrTanner MrGude MrMaughan MrsWade MrHayward MrPerrin Mr Wallace (Teller) Mr Heffernan MrPerton DrWells Mr Honeywood Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time.

Committed. Committee Clause 1

Progress reported.

CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 13 March; motion of Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General). Mrs WADE (Kew) - For many years the Attorney-General and the Law Reform Commission have been labouring to reform the law relating to sexual offences. In 1985 the Attorney-General gave the Law Reform Commission a reference to review the law relating to sexual offences. The commission was directed: To review the law relating to sexual offences in Victoria, in particular the adequacy of the operation in practice of the amendments to the law made by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980; and to recommend what, if any reforms should be made. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 507

The commission has issued a number of discussion papers and four reports on that reference. It is heartening to see the priority that has been given to reform of the law in this area. However, given the amount of time devoted to this issue by the Law Reform Commission, and the number of submissions and evidence given to the commission, the result to some extent is disappointing. The Bill makes some quite significant changes but in other areas it re~nacts the law as it presently stands, without any alteration. Members of the coalition parties have had a number of briefing sessions with officers from the Attorney-General's Department. I thank the Attorney-General for arranging what were very helpful sessions. The opposition has queried whether alterations should have been made to some of the provisions in the Bill that do not appear to be adequate. The answer we have been given is that the provision is in exactly the same terms as the present legislation and there will be no attempt to change such provisions. A number of provisions do not appear to have received sufficient consideration. My first example is a fairly minor one and is contained at clause 3 of the Bill, in proposed new section 38 relating to aggravating circumstances in rape. Proposed new section 38 states in part:

(1) For the purposes of the law relating to rape and indecent assault there are aggravating circumstances only if... (b) immediately before or during or immediately after the commission of the offence and at, or in the vicinity of, the place where the offence was committed- (i) the offender inflicts serious personal violence on the victim or another person; or (ii) the offender does an act which is likely seriously and substantially to degrade or humiliate the victim; or (iii) the offender is aided or abetted by another person who is present.

The opposition queried~ as an example of its difficulty about failure to pick up aspects in the current law which appear to need alteration, whether the words "or, in the vicinity of the place where the offence was committed" should continue in the legislation. The answer from the Attorney-General's Department is that it is already in the legislation. We pointed out that many rape cases occur as a result of people getting about in their cars and other vehicles, and dragging people in off the streets so that to talk about incidents taking place in the vicinity of the original offence does not make much sense because the vehicle may have moved to another place before additional events occur. The other matter of concern is that the original reference to the Law Reform Commission was to examine the interaction between the offence of rape and the offence of aggravated rape. As expected, the Law Reform Commission made recommendations for changes in that area; the quite significant recommendations of the commission should have been picked up in this Bill. On 2 August 1990 the Attorney-General issued a media release in which he states: The legislation will be based on the four reports of the Law Reform Commission which constitute one of the most comprehensive reviews of sexual law ever. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

508 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

The Bill will redefine the offences of rape and indecent assault and simplify the existing offence structure removing any complexities which have caused confusion. For example, aggravated rape and rape will be combined into one offence. The aggravating factors will be taken into account by the judge on sentencing. Something has happened between 2 August 1990 and the date on which the Bill was introduced into the other place. People are frightened by the increase in the number of criminal offences occurring. Women particularly are frightened and worried about the increase in the number of rapes and sexual assaults. It is difficult to estimate the number of rapes and sexual assaults that do occur because many are concerned about reporting offences of this nature. Many women are frightened that the resultant court appearance may be almost as bad as the original circumstances of the offence. The Bill goes somewhat towards reducing their concerns. The lives of women are being limited by fears of venturing out at night, and by fears of using public transport, and of going even in daylight hours into the parks and gardens of Melbourne. Women are not able to take advantage of our very beautiful outdoor recreation areas because many of those areas are or may become the scenes of violent crime. By way of illustration, my electorate office is close to the large and historic Boroondara General Cemetery in Kew. It is an interesting place to visit but I have had complaints from constituents that they no longer feel safe even during daylight hours to visit the graves of family members. That should not be the case and is unacceptable in what we pride ourselves in calling a civilised society. People's lives should not be constrained in that way. Such a situation will become worse if steps are not taken by way of law reform and law enforcement. When in Philadelphia in 1985 I was asked to attend a celebratory dinner for an institution associated with Temple University. I was horrified that quite a number of well-educated and competent women who wished to attend the dinner and who normally drove their own cars were not prepared to drive across Philadelphia after dark to attend that dinner. I could not understand that attitude but they said they were frightened in case their cars broke down between their homes and the university in what were regarded after dark as lino go" areas for women. They were not prepared to take the risk. Also in 1985 in San Francisco I was rather surprised to find in a hotel very close to the centre of the city I was advised that I could exit the front door but walk only in one direction, that any other direction was absolutely out of bounds for a white woman.

I should hate to see that type of situation develop in Melbourne. It is absolutely essential that we take every possible step to ensure our city is made safe for women and other vulnerable members of the community. The possibility of violence and sexual assault is something many women live with to an extent not appreciated by many men. Measures taken to reduce that possibility should receive a high priority. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 509

Sexual assaults are not always associated with violence. The Bill covers situations in which one person is in a position to take advantage of another; perhaps a position of power, authority or trust in relation to another person. Often children and people with impaired mental functioning are particularly vulnerable. Following the Attorney-General's reference to the Law Reform Commission in 1985 the commission has produced four reports: Rape and Allied Offences: Substantive Aspects; Rape and Allied Offences: Procedure and Evidence; Sexual Offences Against People with Impaired Mental Functioning; and Sexual Offences Against Children. Those reports indicated that there was wide consultation with community groups and with individuals. Notwithstanding that, consultation with some groups has obviously not taken place. The opposition has received a number of complaints about the failure to consult on certain aspects of the Bill. The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council during the spring sessional period. It was not widely released for comment prior to its introduction. During the last sessional period I received a number of complaints from organisations that believed they had not been properly consulted and had not received copies of the Bill. They asked for the debate to be delayed. I received letters from the Women's Electoral Lobby asking for a delay of debate on the Bill because it believed the issue of consent in rape cases had not been properly addressed - in fact it had not been addressed at all - and it believed that this was a huge gap in the amendment of the law relating to sexual offences. I also received correspondence from the Real Rape Law Coalition which said the Bill was entirely inadequate and that it should not proceed in its current form. It was concerned that the Bill had been drafted without significant community consultation. I hope consultation has taken place since then. The Bill was delayed not because of the requests received from those many organisations for a delay but because the government refused to debate the opposition's amendments made to the Bill in another place.

Our major criticisms of the government were that it did not tackle two important issues that were perceived to lead to difficulties in the successful prosecution of some cases. Firstly, women's organisations were particularly concerned about the failure to tackle the problem of consent - the difficulty for the prosecution of proving beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent and of rebutting a claim of honest belief that there was consent. There is no belief that this requirement is reasonable. As a result of the failure to include new provisions, fifty organisations got together, including the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Women's Legal Resources Group, and the Centres Against Sexual Assault in an organisation called the Real Rape Law Coalition to bring their concerns to public attention. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

510 ASSEMBLY Wednesday. 20 March 1991

I shall refer to some of the concerns raised by the Real Rape Law Coalition. It issued a number of media releases. One summarises the problems it saw in the Bill. It says: Belief in consent has been upheld as a defence to rape charges in cases where women have had limbs broken, severe bruising and lacerations, and where screams have been heard by witnesses . . .The accused's belief does not have to be reasonable, objective, or even credible. H the attacker can convince the court that he ''honestly'' believed the woman was consenting then, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded that belief, no rape has occurred ... The issues of consent and ''honest belief" apply to all offences listed in the sexual offences legislation. This is a complaint that goes to the whole Bill. The coalition goes on: The draft Bill resulting from the Law Reform Commission's report, however, ignores the need for major change to the issue of consent. .. In an attachment to the media release the coalition provides a number of case studies which are based on people who have come to the centres against sexual assault. They do not necessarily reflect the facts as found by the courts. I shall read two case studies that illustrate the gravity of the women's organisations' fears about the Bill: Case study 2 - Deborah, aged 28, a waitress, was hailing a taxi when a car pulled up. Three unknown men dragged her into the car and threatened her with a knife. She was taken to a house, physically assaulted and raped vaginally and orally. Two of the men left. When the main perpetrator went into another room, IRborah escaped by smashing through a plate glass door. Her resultant physical injuries included a broken limb, severe lacerations and bruising to her body. The accused subsequently claimed a belief in Deborah's consent to the oral and vaginal penetration. The accused was acquitted on all charges, except the indecent assault. Case study 3 - Jenny, aged 26, working as a radiologist, accepted a lift home from a social function with an acquaintance she had been introduced to that evening. He drove her to an em pty shopping centre where he threatened her with violence. Then he raped her. Prior to the assault, Jenny had never had intercourse. Her screams were heard by witnesses. She also sustained physical injuries, scratches and bruising. The accused claimed a belief in Jenny's consent, and explained her screams as a response to the pleasure she was experiencing due to the sexual contact. He was acquitted on all charges. Honourable members will understand why many women feel the existing provisions are not satisfactory. The Law Reform Commission recommended that there be no change in consent provisions. It gave four reasons for that and it is important to consider those reasons. The commission examined some alternative propositions including legislation that has been passed in Michigan where the offence of forcible rape was replaced by a scheme of sexual assault which removed lack of consent as an element of the offences. Instead, the consent of the victim became a defence available to the accused. The legislation provides that a person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct if he or she uses coercion to engage in sexual penetration, and a list of coercive circumstances is provided. The commission examined that legislation but it decided the lack of consent should remain a central element of the offence of rape for four reasons: firstly, it is unlikely that there is any substantial difference between the evidence that would be required to . demonstrate that a person felt coerced and the evidence to prove that the person did not CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 511 consent; and secondly, a concept of coercive circumstances would require further additional directions to be given to the jury concerning the shift in the burden of proof. This would create considerable problems for both judge and jury. Thirdly, the concept of coercion has strong connotations of violence and physical compulsion. Courts and juries might interpret it in terms of forcible rape and, fourthly, consent is the element which is accepted by everyone as the factor distinguishing lawful from unlawful behaviour. It is because the victim was not consenting that the act deserves punishment. It is therefore appropriate that lack of consent should constitute an element of the offence which the prosecution must prove. Those four reasons do not adequately address the question of reasonable belief in consent. I do not believe it is impossible for a section to be devised which would be better than the one that is now in force in Victoria. This is a difficult area, but if the Law Reform Commission focused its attention on the question of belief in consent I believe it would come up with something more satisfactory. The coalition considered proposing an amendment of its own, because we felt further consideration needed to be given to the matter. Although we did not propose an amendment during the last session, we have consulted widely with women's organisations, focusing on the belief in consent issue. Among the people we spoke to were representatives of the Real Rape Law Coalition, who advised us they would prefer to await the outcome of the inquiry set up by the Attorney-General during the last session of Parliament. The Attorney-General has requested the Law Reform Commission to review all of the files of the Director of Public Prosecutions for rape prosecutions over a period of not less than six months. The commission will then report to the Attorney-General on whether the review shows that changes are required. Until last week I had assumed that although that information was not available for debate on the Bill last session it would be available this session and that we could expect to see amendments in this area introduced when the second-reading debate on the Bill was resumed. However the Attorney-General has advised me that the report is not expected until April and that he proposes to go ahead with the Bill and consider at some later stage whether amendments are necessary. That is not satisfactory. If we have before us a Bill that is intended to re-enact all of the law relating to sexual offences, consideration of this important area should not be postponed until some later time, particularly as the report is due as early as April and could well be considered during this session if the Bill were held over until the report was available.

It appears there are a large number of people who have similar views. I received many telephone calls from people who became aware that the Bill was listed for debate this afternoon. For example, I received phone calls from a number of people who work at centres against sexual assault as well as from people from the Federation of Community CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

512 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Legal Centres, asking for the debate to be postponed. Those people expect that the Law Reform Commission report will result in further amendments. I understand that proposals from the Real Rape Law Coalition are to go to the Law Reform Commission on 4 April, and members of the coalition expect amendments recommended by the Law Reform Commission to be incorporated in the Bill. They told me that they have been advised by the Attorney-General's policy advisers that that will be the case. I pointed out to them that the debate on the Bill would not finish this afternoon and that if they contacted the Attorney-General they might be able to clear up the matter and have the Bill held over until the report became available. The second major issue not addressed by the Bill is that involving sexual offences against children. Honourable members will be aware of the publicity that resulted from a High Court decision on a case known as S. v. The Queen, which was handed down on 21 December 1989. I believe the decision is reported in the Commonwealth Llw Reports, although I do not have a reference for it. The case involved a father charged with incest and alleged a number of such offences occurred over three years. The evidence was that sexual acts had occurred, starting when the daughter was aged 9 or 10 and continuing until she was 17, and that from the age of 14 to 17 sexual intercourse had occurred between the father and the daughter every couple of months. The problem in that case was the difficulty of differentiating one act of sexual intercourse from another. Little evidence was given of the times at which the alleged offences took place. The High Court found that there was not sufficient certainty as to three particular alleged offences and that there was no way of distinguishing them from other acts of a similar nature about which evidence had been given. There are two general responses that have been made to the case. The first is that the charges were not as well drawn as they might have been, and the second is that something has been read into the case that is not there. It has been suggested that such prosecutions will not be successful until the particular date of the offence is known. I make it clear to the Attorney-General that the coalition is well aware that that is not so. Nevertheless it is necessary to identify the occasions which give rise to the offence. The case of S. v. The Queen is not the only case of this sort; a number of cases have been decided along those lines in various Supreme Courts. As a result of those decisions the former Queensland government legislated in January 1989 to create the new offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The matter has also been raised with the Law Reform Commission which examined the issue but again recommended that there be no change in the law. Apparently that was decided on the basis that the commission could not devise an appropriate provision to protect the interests of the child and the accused person. The opposition is determined that the issue should be tackled in the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Bill. If it is not, children will suffer. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 513

I shall make clear to the Attorney-General why the opposition feels amendments in this area are necessary by discussing the sorts of circumstances where this is likely to be an issue. Often children are subjected to sexual abuse over a long time and often the sexual acts involved can be numbered in the dozens and sometimes in the hundreds. Often such abuse is not reported to the police, and it is only after some other victim reports the sexual offence that the police search the premises of the alleged offender and, for example, find photographs that identify other victims. Often it is the case that the police approach those other victims and ask whether they wish to lay charges. Therefore, by the time the child makes a statement to the police many months may have elapsed since the last offence. It may be that the offender has directed his attention to some other child and this child has been free of his attentions for perhaps six months or a year. With such a large number of sexual acts in his or her past the child may not be able to distinguish one from another. The point is that the child may have to identify something else that took place on that day. He or she may not have to identify the date of the offence but may have to identify some other thing that happened at that particular time that day or surrounding days that would enable the child to identify the specific offence and the occasion on which that offence occurred. It may' be that the Attorney-General and I are at cross-purposes on this because he keeps telling me that the child does not have to identify the date; I keep telling him and his advisers that I understand that, but it appears to me that he does not understand that at some time in the future a child will have to identify the specific offence and relate that specific offence to a specific, identified occasion. I should like to read to the Attorney-General the words of Mr Justice Dawson in the High Court case of S. v. The Queen. At page 10 he referred to the inadequacies of the prosecution's case and said: ... the prosecution case sought to go no further than to establish that an incestuous relationship existed between the applicant and his daughter - which is to do no more than establish a particular kind of propensity - and to assert the guilt of the applicant upon three unspecified occasions during the existence of, and upon the basis of, that relationship. Far from establishing the necessary high degree of relevance, to proceed in this way was to obtain the conviction of the applicant upon evidence of propensity unrelated to a specific offence upon an identified occasion. ... the la w requires that there be certainty as to the particular offence of which an accused is charged, if for no other reason than that he should, if charged with the same offence a second time, be able to plead autrefois convict or autrefois acquit. Further on he says: ... a defendant is entitled to be apprised not only of the legal nature of the offence with which he is charged but also of the particular act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the charge. I make it clear that in that case the jury was satisfied that the relationship existed between the father and the child; they were just unable to identify a specific offence described by the child as having occurred on a specific occasion. Therefore, when the child talked about the occasion when the father dressed up in the mother's clothes and CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

514 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991 sexual intercourse took place, they were unable to identify that particular circumstance with a particular identified occasion. It is true, as I have been advised by the Attorney-General's advisers, that sometimes another child will be able to come forward and say, ''That was the day of the football match" or the like. That is fine if that occurs but it will not occur in every case.

The Attorney-General appears to be overwhelmed by the need to protect the rights of alleged offenders. I agree this is extremely important. People must be able to defend themselves from untrue accusations. We believe it is possible to draft an amendment, and we believe we have drafted an amendment which both provides additional protection for children and does not significantly affect the rights of the accused. The opposition prepared a number of drafts. It modelled them on the Queensland provision; we believe we improved on the Queensland provision. We gave the first draft of our amendment to the Attorney-General, through his advisers, for the purpose of discussing it.

We were somewhat surprised to find the Attorney-General sent it out to a large number of people, including groups such as the Victorian Bar, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Director of Public Prosecutions and also, I believe, the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. Given that we had provided the amendment for the purposes of discussion we were rather surprised to find that had occurred. Nevertheless, the input we received from those organisations was of assistance, and that was particularly so in regard to the letter the Attorney-General received from the then Director of Public Prosecutions which contained a number of comments about our original draft, and in which he said that our draft amendment was an improvement on the Queensland provision, but he also made a number of criticisms of it. By the time we received the criticisms we were on about our fourth draft, which we believed met most of the criticisms made and, in so far as it did not, we incorporated his suggestions into that draft. We believe the provision which was included in the Bill in another place meets all the objections that have been put forward by various people to whom the Attorney-General sent copies of our amendment. The Attorney-General has now said the government proposes to remove the provision that contains this amendment, that is, proposed section 47 A, and to put in its place some other amendments. He has provided a copy of those amendments to me.

It is dear that the government amendments which, on their face, cover the same field as proposed section 47 A, do absolutely nothing. They are merely declaratory of the present law, and that fact has been confirmed by both the Attorney-General and his advisers. Therefore the amendments proposed to be put forward by the government can be regarded as mere window-dressing. They do not in any way change the law and, on that basis, do not have the opposition's support or the support of people dealing with sexually abused children. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 515

I have been approached by quite a number of people who have said they are not happy with the government's amendments. They are no substitution for the coalition's amendments that are found in proposed section 47A. However, I am pleased that the government has accepted the other opposition amendments which related to the age of consent. Under the present law the age of consent is 18 years but children aged between 10 and 15 can consent if the age differential between the two people involved is no more than two years; and between the ages of 16 and 17 years, they can consent if the age differential is no more than five years. The Law Reform Commission recommended a reduction of the age of consent from 18 to 17 years and the creation of new offences to deal with persons having authority over persons aged 16 years who took part in any sexual activity with those children. The Act contains a number of offences that cover this circumstance of a person in authority committing incest, sexual penetration, indecent assault or soliciting in relation to a child under his or her care or supervision. We will raise a number of issues on individual clauses in Committee, and it is obviously not appropriate to go through them at this stage. I shall express briefly the opposition's views on a number of important changes that have been made to the Bill, including changes that were highlighted in the Attorney-General's second-reading speech. He mentioned that a child will be competent to give evidence under the new Bill if the child understands the obligation to tell the truth and can give rational replies to questions. Previously if a child did not understand the nature of the oath, the accused could not be convicted unless the child's evidence was corroborated. This deterred people from reporting cases of sexual offences against children. There is no real reason why children's evidence should be constrained in this way, because some children may be more reliable witnesses than some adults. The coalition has agreed to the changes and believes it is a step forward in this area. Coupled with the proposals contained. in the Bill making it easier for children to give evidence, they will result in more cases coming before the courts and more satisfactory results. If the legislation is passed offenders who previously have been able to prey on children will find it much more difficult to do so. The Bill makes a number of changes to assist children in giving evidence. I will not go to those changes in detail. The Bill provides for video evidence and audio recording of evidence which may then be admitted as evidence-in-chief, although the child may be called to be cross-examined. This follows a number of changes of this nature which have taken place overseas and which, to the best of my knowledge, have been successful and have not caused problems. Over the past couple of days it has been suggested to me that in the United States of America juries have not been keen to accept video evidence, resulting in acquittals where it was thought the video evidence was not as acceptable to the jury as a child giving evidence-in-chief in person. It may be the additional powers need to be used very carefully and should be kept under review. CRIMES (SEXUAL OFFENCES) Bll.L

516 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

These provisions will also apply to people with impaired mental functioning and there are changes in the provisions about the giving of evidence by adults. In relation to people with impaired mental functioning offences are created by the proposed new sections 51 and 52. Proposed section 52 relates to offences by people working in residential facilities against the residents in those facilities. This provision is welcome, particularly in view of evidence that is emerging about serious offences having occurred in at least one institution. Proposed section 51 deals with sexual offences against people with impaired mental functioning. It reads:

A person who provides medical or therapeutic services to a person with impaired mental functioning who is not his or her spouse or de facto spouse must not take part in an act of sexual penetration with that person. Similar provisions follow in relation to indecent acts. I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether the limiting of that section to people providing medical or therapeutic services is appropriate and whether he should not consider extending the provision to people providing other services. As more and more people with impaired mental functioning live in the community there will be a need for them to have services and I should have thought that people providing domestic-type services may also constitute a risk. The coalition welcomes the extension of the offence of incest to include de facto partners but has some concern about the incest provisions. In situations of offences by de facto partners, which are not incest in the true sense of the term but come in under a deeming provision, it may be desirable to keep separate statistics for offences involving stepfathers, natural fathers and de facto partners so that one is better able to analyse where the offences are occurring. We query whether the incest provisions should apply to adults with no blood relationship - stepfathers and stepdaughters - where both parties are over the age of eighteen and may never have lived together or had any close relationship. We also ask the Attorney-General to consider whether the incest provisions should be extended to include circumstances involving stepchildren where one older child is in a position of authority over a younger child. In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General referred to a technical matter raised by one of the Crown prosecutors as to the way in which the offences were expressed and whether there was any doubt as to whether most of these offences are indictable offences. The prosecutor thought there was too much plain English in the Bill and, in a letter of 16 November 1990, said:

Consistency is needed in the drafting of this type of legislation. The modern trendy wording in this Bill is bound to lead to uncertainty and much judicial comment. PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 517

As the Attorney-General knows, I am strongly in favour of plain English but it may have been desirable to have a bit of consistency in this Bill. If we had to have historic offences in the Bill it might have been desirable to treat all offences on the same basis rather than ha ving one form of words for historic offences and another for other offences. The Attorney-General assures me he has had advice from the Parliamentary Counsel that there is no problem with the Bill and I am prepared to accept that advice. The coalition is very pleased with the work that has been done on the reference to the Law Reform Commission in this area. Despite a few comments as to whether the Attorney-General has actually got it right and whether the Law Reform Commission could not have been a bit more adventurous in this area, we are pleased there has been a large number of improvements, particularly relating to the giving of evidence. The Attorney-General recently provided the opposition with additional amendments which we are considering. I hope we will be in a position to indicate our acceptance of those amendments, which relate to consent in circumstances where a person thought he or she was consenting to a medical procedure. We have not yet had the opportunity of consulting with people and properly considering those amendments. These proposals began with the reference to the Law Reform Commission in 1985. It would be a pity if we spoilt it after all this time by not covering some of the issues which are crucial to a proper consideration of this area of the law. I ask the Attorney-General to wait for the report of the Law Reform Commission on the question of consent before the Bill goes further. I also ask him, in the light of my explanation of the case of S. v. The Queen, whether he will give further consideration to looking again at the amendments creating a new offence in the area of child sexual abuse. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley).

Debate adjourned until next day.

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Council

Read first time on motion of Mr KENNAN (Attorney-GeneraI).

ADJOURNMENT Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That the House do now adjourn. ADJOURNMENT

518 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

Port of Melbourne Authority Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport regarding a tender submitted by Sesco Engineering Pty Ltd of 175 Bamfield Road, West Heidelberg for the erection of floodlight towers for the Port of Melbourne Authority.

The tender was submitted by Sesco Engineering Pty Ltd but it failed to obtain the contract. The contract was granted to a company called Ranking Engineering Pty Ltd, which submitted a quotation of $240 000 as against the quotation submitted by Sesco Engineering of $163230; a difference of $76770.

On receiving confirmation by letter that it was not successful in its bid, Sesco Engineering applied to the Ministry of Transport, through the Port of Melbourne Authority, to find out why it was not successful. The Ministry replied that the problem with the tender was with the type of tower on which they submitted their tender. The Ministry said that the members of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia who work on these types of towers prefer the tilting tower which can be lowered to ground level, the basis of the tender by Ranking Engineering.

The tower produced by Sesco Engineering has an inside ladder so that people can have access to carry out repairs. The Port of Melbourne Authority has twenty towers similar to the towers constructed by Sesco Engineering.

The other reason given by the department for the failure of the tender of Sesco Engineering is that it had to comply with conditions laid down by the Federal government because Federal government funding was involved.

In the current climate of economic constraint it seems absurd that a company which has submitted a lower tender is barred from obtaining the tender because of the conditions that have been imposed in this case. I have no doubt that by the time extra work is carried out on foundations, servicing and so on the quotation submitted by Ranking Engineering will increase substantially.

I ask the Minister to examine this issue in light of the reforms required to be undertaken by the Port of Melbourne Authority because once Ranking Engineering complies with the various conditions the difference in the tender price will be approximately $80 000. Obviously the Electrical Trades Union of Australia is displaying its strength once again and imposing its will on the Port of Melbourne Authority.

Again I ask the Minister to examine this issue and, in due course, I expect that Sesco Engineering will be told why its tender was not accepted. Remote area milk rebates Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) - I raise for the attention of the Minister for Agriculture the matter of remote area rebates for milk processors throughout Victoria. The issue is now becoming serious and the delivery of milk in remote areas of the State is being ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 519

affected. In my electorate the only two communities which are not affected by remote area rebates are Swan Hill and Kerang. In 1984 the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority set a rate of 2 cents a litre as a remote area rebate for milk processors. The rate has not changed. The processors approached the VOlA and asked for a review of that rate. They were granted a review and the recommendation is that the rebate should be 2.16 cents a litre. In seven years the rebate has increased 0.16 cents! The milk distributors in the northern areas of Victoria, in my electorate and in surrounding electorates, are faced with the option of reducing the frequency of milk deliveries to these communities, charging dairymen in those areas for the delivery of milk or asking the dairymen in those small towns to collect the milk from the major depots. The VOlA is subject to the general direction and control of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Mfairs. Two of its objectives are: the sufficient supply of milk for human consumption of a satisfactory standard for all markets in Victoria; and the setting of a fair price that has valid claims for all sectors involved in production and marketing. Because the remote area rebates have not been increased for a lengthy period the regulated milk industry, the processors, are taking action against the VOlA by creating difficulties in the delivery of fresh milk throughout country Victoria. I am not talking of really remote areas, but substantial communities. I ask the Minister to fulfil his obligations under the Dairy Act and ensure that a fair and reasonable rebate is supplied for the distribution of milk in the remote areas of Victoria. Redevelopment of Essendon Airport Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Planning and Housing and, in his absence, the Attorney-General, a proposal for job creation and urban consolidation, namely, the redevelopment of the Essendon Airport site. The economic benefits of redeveloping the site should be examined. A proposal put forward by the City of Essendon indicates that some 2500 houses could be built. Using figures supplied by the Australian Housing Research Council and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), it is possible to measure the employment that would flow from such a major project - in all probability - the creation of more than 6000 jobs. Redevelopment of Essendon Airport would therefore be a major employment boost to the north-western suburbs of Melbourne and certainly would not, as some people allege, lead to unemployment in that area. Essendon Airport has been losing money progressively over the years as a freight airport since the establishment of Melbourne Airport. The project would also be of benefit to urban consolidation, one of the issues the Minister has spoken about frequently, and would assist in solving the problem Melbourne is experiencing because of its urban sprawl and the cost of servicing that sprawl in the Werribee and Plenty corridors, recently estimated as being of approximately $8 billion. ADJOURNMENT

520 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

The Essendon Airport site is not only an area which has all the basic utilities such as gas, water and electricity nearby, but it has schools and public transport surrounding it which are underutilised. It is an urban infrastructure and consolidation opportunity issue of massive proportions. I have forwarded material to the Housing Industry Association and I am pleased to say that the association recently issued a press release supporting my proposal and expressing the view that redevelopment of the Essendon Airport site would be of considerable benefit in terms of job creation and urban consolidation. I must therefore express considerable disappointment that the Northern Region Commission, led by the Shire of Bulla, has fallen for a three-card trick in considering the Port Phillip Aviation Review of Essendon Airport. The Shire of Bulla has suggested that Essendon Airport should remain where it is on the basis that the study believes the best alternative to Essendon Airport would be to relocate air traffic to Tullamarine. Tullamarine is a ridiculous alternative, and it is not put forward by people who are serious about relocating Essendon Airport operations.

It is unfortunate that the Shire of Bulla fell for it. Those who believe Essendon Airport should be relocated believe that Avalon Airport, and to some extent other airports in the western band, have some responsibility to take additional airport traffic. It concerns me that the City of Coburg, which adopted an anti-Essendon Airport stance when I was a councillor of that council, as recently as last Monday night voted to support the continuation of Essendon Airport. Independent councillors Nonna Willoughby and Geoff Lutz have supported the proposal that a tour of Essendon Airport be arranged for the councillors. It is all too easy to be taken for a joy ride at Essendon and effectively bought off. The City of Coburg needs to consult with its own ratepayers. I suggest that it ought to have a referendum on the issue in the area of Pascoe Vale, if not before, at least at the time of the next council elections, to find out what the ratepayers and residents really think about the proposal. Public transport on Momington Peninsula Dr WELLS (Dromana) - I refer my comments to the Minister for Transport. They concern the important provision of adequate, practical and fair public transport on the Mornington Peninsula. The Public Transport Corporation has invited local government authorities to make submissions on the private bus services. The Shire of Flinders has responded by submitting its community bus review report, and I wish to raise that subject in the strongest possible terms with the government. I have lost count of how many times I have spoken in this House on this matter. Over the past six years there has been no significant change to the service provided by the Victorian government. The Mornington Peninsula has extremely limited public transport. The Peninsula Bus Line runs buses up and down the Nepean Highway, but nothing else is provided by the Victorian government. A second small community bus ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 521 service that is sponsored by the Shire of Flinders provides suburban transport. There is no cross-peninsula public transport in the area. During the last fuel crisis one of my constituents rang the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to ask where the tank of fuel due there on that Friday night was. The person in the Premier's office said, "Grab a can, hop on the train to Frankston and get the petrol there". That person did not know that there is no train service on the peninsula. There is no cross-peninsula transport and no government transport provided in those suburbs. The small community bus service conveys people from as far away as 3 kilometres to the shopping area. It conveys a large number of retired people. One in three of my constituents is a retired person; there are 10000 of them. Many of them do not drive. At a public meeting in the electorate recently a little old lady stood up with callipers on her arms and legs and said that without the community bus she has no way of buying her food. She has no-one to talk to and lives in a little house on her own at the back of Rosebud.

The service provided by the Shire of Flinders is vital to the area. Since 1979, when the service was established, an average of 63 000 trips have been made each year. The cost has increased by nearly 121 per cent in twelve years. The operator, the Shire of Flinders, is efficient, but the current loss on the shire's accounts is $130 000. The Victorian government contributes almost $20 000 by way of pensioner subsidy, so for each $1 contributed by the Victorian government the shire has contributed $6.50 from rate revenue. The income from fares is one-third of the total cost of running the service, yet I assure the House that the cancellation of the service would be met with extreme activity by people in the area.

A large public meeting was held when the service was threatened with closure last year. It was continued by the shire but the area has now been divided into three zones with the following return fares: $3.20 for the first zone; $5 for the second zone; and $7 for the third zone. The concession fares are half those figures. Mothers with children will not be able to afford to pay the $S and $7 fares. It will affect elderly citizens as well as mothers with children. People who need the service to travel to work will not be able to afford those fares.

The time has come for the Victorian government to provide a fair and equitable share in the public transport of Victoria for the people in my electorate of Dromana. It is scandalous that the government loses $2 billion a year on public transport but provides only $20 000 for an essential, efficient service run by a local community and funded by rate revenue. I ask, yet again, that the government gets off its hands this time and does something about the matter. Urban Land Authority Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - The matter I raise for the attention of the Treasurer and, in his absence, the Attorney-General, who is at the table, is of vital public importance and relates to the government's action in providing first home buyers with the opportunity of ADJOURNMENT

522 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

purchasing discounted blocks through the Urban Land Authority. A block valued at $40000 would be discounted by $10 000 to $30 000 for a first home buyer. The first home buyer goes to the bank and applies for a loan for, say, $60 000 as part of a home package to build on the block. However, the bank needs to have the land revalued to determine the amount of money that can be lent. It says that the first home buyer has paid only $30 000 for the land and without a valuation of $40 000 would be eligible only for a loan relating to a $30 000 valuation - otherwise the home buyer would have to pay the full price of the block of land.

I ask the Treasurer to examine how widespread that practice is in the banking industry. If the market value is $40 000, that value should be able to be taken into account when the first home buyer is applying for the loan.

I should like the Treasurer te ascertain what charges the bank imposes on the first home buyers and what effect those charges are having in this private enterprise system. Does a young couple have to seek an independent valuation to prove that the value of land in the surrounding area has increased? The government's commitment to assisting first home buyers to buy blocks of land at a price cheaper than that paid by people who do not qualify does not devalue the price of land in the area. If one goes to Keilor, Hopper's Crossing or the Taylors Lake areas where first home buyers are buying homes on the open market, one appreciates that property is not being devalued on that basis.

I ask the Treasurer to examine the matter and to use his good offices to ensure that the banks consider the market value and do not impose on the people seeking the loan the extra cost of obtaining an independent valuation. Secondly, I ask that he ensure that first home buyers are not put at a disadvantage by being restricted in the amount of money they can borrow against the asset of the property on which the house is to be constructed.

It has been brought to my attention, although not substantiated, that the stamp duty on the transfer that some people claim they have actually paid is on the amount of $40 000 rather than on the discount price of $30 000 of these blocks of land that the government is making available to first home buyers who qualify as low-income earners.

I urge the Treasurer to investigate this matter and let me know so that I can make known to the people involved which bank they should go to. This practice seems to have been widespread in the private enterprise banks which, instead of assisting first home buyers on low incomes, have found a loophole and are making extra money out of these people. Mallee support services Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs and I refer to the needs-bflsed funding model discussion paper for the tenant support program and the consumer support program released by the Ministry. If implemented this funding model will have the effect of cutting the Mallee service by some 50 per cent and that would leave two unpalatable options, either the Mildura or the Swan Hill office will have to close or the services will be reduced to part time. ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, 20 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 523

This measure will provide no saving of funds because the funds that would be saved from the Mallee service would be only approximately $30 000 and this would be redirected into the western suburbs in the metropolitan area. That seems to be a blatant political measure which is opportunism at its worst on the part of the government and once again highlights that rural people are to be the poor cousins to their city counterparts.

The Mallee service was opened only twelve months ago and the Minister came to both Mildura and Swan Hill and opened the service with fanfare and supportive comments. The local press reported the Minister as saying at that time:

Mr Mier said analysis of 1986 census figures showed the Mallee electorate to be the poorest in Victoria. The need for this service was obvious, given the high percentage of low-income earners in this region. This is a positive step for the region and I'm sure the service will help to alleviate problems landlords and tenants face each day. Everyone involved with the office had worked very hard to set it up and all have high expectations of future results. They did have high expectations and the people of the Mallee have used the service. Apart from the savage inequality that this proposed model of the Labor government will have it reduces fair access for communities in isolated areas and contradicts the government's much publicised social justice strategy.

I am concerned that this is simply a measure to redirect funds away from country Victoria and reduce much needed and well supported services in favour of city people. I am aware that the Mallee Tenancy Advice Chairman, Mr Ray Meehan, has written to the Minister in the strongest possible terms condemning this move and providing evidence for continuing adequate funding. I can only endorse his remarks that if this model is implemented it will seriously damage the recently improved status of the Ministry and reinforce the strong perception that the government is totally unresponsive to rural needs. Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) - I bring a matter to the attention of the Minister for Conservation and Environment concerning water pricing in the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. By way of background I refer to the business plan of the Rural Water Commission which envisages a zero rate of return within fifteen years and the five-year plan of the Rural Water Commission for 1990-91 to 1994-95.

That plan envisages water prices increasing by 12 per cent this year and by 10 to 12 per cent for eac~ of the next four years. This is an impossible burden on irrigators and I point out that in the area I represent irrigation agriculture has a gross value of farm production of about $500 million a year and by the time one adds the multiplier effect to that the economic activity is in the order of $2000 million a year.

At a time when farming industries are suffering with the wheat and wool industry having a decline in their returns of approximately 40 to 60 per cent, with the dairying industry down 20 to 30 per cent and with the horticultural industries battling for their ADJOURNMENT

524 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 1991

survival, there could not be a worse time to increase water charges because these increases take no account of the farmers' ability to pay. I refer to a quote by the Chairman of the Salinity Program Advisory Council, Mr John Dainton, who is concerned about the effect that increased water charges will have on salinity control programs. He said: The community impetus that has developed must not be stifled by unfair and inequitable government policies. The Minister for Agriculture also understands the problems because he was reported in the Shepparton News on 21 February as saying: The government couldn't pick a worse time in the rural crisis to change the rules and jack up prices - it's not fair. He is dead right; it is simply not fair. Farmers attended mass meetings, firstly at Kerang, then 600 at Kyabram; 150 at Leitchville, and 500 at Strathmerton and resolved to withhold their water rates until they were able to get from the Minister for Conservation and Environment an assurance that the water pricing policy would be reviewed and would reflect the government's willingness to carry the costs above the head works, to abolish current cost accounting and to conduct an independent inquiry into the Rural Water Commission. The Minister for Agriculture has publicly shown that he does- understand the problems facing the rural community and has gone in to bat for the farmers. That is certainly appreciated. The Minister also understands the effect it is having on the salinity control program. He said that he had spoken to the Premier and the Minister for Conservation and Environment and I ask the Minister to say what action he proposes to take as a result of representations to him by the Minister for Agriculture about water pricing in the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. Police services in Caulfield Mr TANNER (Caulfield) - I raise a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. As the Minister would be aware I have received representations from the Caulfield community expressing concern about the provision of police services. I have written to the Minister requesting that he visit the Caulfield area to meet with representatives of the various Neighbourhood Watch zones. Unfortunately to date I have not received a response from him. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Responses Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank honourable members for the courteous and enlightened way in which they have rai8ed matters. I shall refer all the matters to the relevant Ministers for their attention. Motion agreed to. House adjourned 6.40 p.m. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE lnmsday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 525

Thursday, 21 March 1991

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I ask the Treasurer: is it a fact that the government owes more than $1300 million to the State Superannuation Fund and other public sector superannuation schemes and what action is the government taking to ensure the funds will be able to pay benefits as they fall due? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question; it is one occasion where the two questions committees seem to have the same view. As a result of a program that appeared last night on ABC television, which can be described only as a disgrace, this morning many people are extremely disturbed at the suggestion that their pensions or lump sums may be at risk. The concerned people include members of the Police Force, public servants and pensioners, and they would not have been helped by the comments made this morning by the shadow Treasurer who said on radio station 3A Wand elsewhere that the government was stealing the future security of public servants who are retiring. I shall make the situation clear, and if the honourable member for Brighton or anyone else had bothered to look at the situation of and the legislation regarding the State Superannuation Fund it would be clear to them. Since 1966 lump sums have been financed by the State Superannuation Board, which has paid lump sums to retiring members and has recovered the Consolidated Fund share of the cost as though no conversion to lump sums took place. For the sake of members of the opposition and their Leader, I mention that that legislation was introduced in 1966 by Act No. 7417, and was subsequently amended in 1972 and 1975.

What has ~n significantly added to the legislation in this decade is that the board now gets a real rate of interest on the moneys involved and has moved from the nominal 6 per cent rate in 1966 to a real 6 per cent interest rate. These matters are dealt with annually in the annual reports of the superannuation schemes. To suggest something new has occurred, as was suggested on radio this morning by the honourable member for Brighton and on last night's television program, is absolute nonsense. The program last night had had the advantage of a detailed briefing on the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

526 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

way the system operates and has operated in the past. The Leader of the National Party knows about this because of his period as a member of the all-party committee which, among other things, dealt with superannuation issues and suggested that those unfunded arrangements that do not apply to this issue but apply generally to the fund should continue. I remind honourable members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, that legislative arrangements apply and that the system is continuing. The State Superannuation Board has some concern about what the limit should be, and the government is currently discussing the matter. It has been administering the scheme in that way for 25 years and is continuing to administer it in that way. It was also suggested that there were particular problems with the emergency services scheme. I remind honourable members that in November 1986 the matter came before Parliament and my colleague the honourable member for Doveton made it clear there would be a period when the claims were greater than the funds available and borrowings would be required. That was specifically referred to by the Leader of the National Party, who said that borrowings would be required. The honourable member for Brighton said the Liberal Party welcomed the measure as a further step in the important process of reforming Victoria's public sector superannuation; indeed, he said it was overdue. It is public knowledge that there were - as the Leader of the National Party had predicted in the Parliament - a significant number of resignations and a substantial demand for lump sum payments. That occurred and an agreement was entered into between the Treasurer and the State Superannuation Board that that would be repaid over this decade. That has been referred to in the board's reports before this Parliament. To suggest that there is something new or strange occurring is to ignore the information we have. It is important to realise that the board, in administering the emergency services fund, has a clear direction and has appointed Westpac Banking Corporation to manage this liability. The objective - and it is important that the board stresses this - is to reduce to an absolute minimum the cost of borrowing and therefore the overall cost to the Consolidated Fund. The board is adopting a very responsible attitude to this issue. It really is amazing that -

Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if the Treasurer -­ Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! Any honourable member is entitled to raise a point of order and for that point of order to be heard in silence. I ask all honourable members to remain silent. Mr I. W. SMITH - If the Treasurer is to be believable in this matter, as he was in his statement concerning Tricontinental or the VEDC -- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 527

The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member has a point of order he should come to it.

Mr I. W. SMITH - The Treasurer should make a Ministerial statement and have it debated. That is the only way anyone is going to believe it.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - After all, this is not a question from this side of the House or the corner benches, it is from the Leader of the Opposition, whom one would have thought would have checked these matters before he raised them in the way he has.He was probably briefed by the honourable member for Brighton, so one can excuse his failure in this regard. The previous time he was briefed he rushed in here and maligned Bill Gurry and then found his colleague had vanished, as he has with the business community of Victoria.

Mr Kennan - When is he going to apologise?

Mr ROPER - There is no doubt that there needs to be an ongoing review of superannuation arrangements. The Parliament considered this through an all-party committee and suggested a number of reforms. A number of those suggestions were adopted and there has been an improvement over the past couple of years in what otherwise would have occurred.

For those who suggest illegality, I refer them to the Superannuation Act and its various amendments over the past 25 years. INTEREST SWAP TRANSACTION Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I refer the Treasurer to the advice of KPMG Peat Marwick which stated that the accounts of the Consolidated Fund should specifically disclose the $35 million payment received under the interest swap transaction as a deduction from interest expense by way of a separate line item, and I ask: why was this advice not followed by the Treasurer in the 1989-90 financial statement?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - As Parliament well knows and has been informed previously and as the Public Accounts subcommittee of the Estimates Committee was informed, Treasury advised that the swap agreement should proceed. Subsequently, the Auditor-General raised a number of issues. He raised th~ issue of its status as a borrowing and the issue of whether it was a global borrowing.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the question I asked was quite specific. I wanted to know why the advice of KPMG Peat Marwick was not followed.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

528 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I will go through the sequence of events for the Leader of the National Party who, as we all know, is very strong on the idea that superannuation funds should continue on their unfunded basis as they have since 1927. The Auditor-General raised a number of accounting issues. The Treasury sought legal advice in relation to that and found that a number of practices that had traditionally been followed had legal doubts in relation to them. So last October, because of our concern about these matters, the matter was referred to the all-party Parliamentary committee which has now reported, suggesting that there needs to be both specific legislation and a number of other legislative measures as well. The government has made it clear that it will follow the subcommittee's suggested legislative remedy to both the specific and the general problem. The point I would make, however, is that it is now suggested by the honourable member for Brighton that that advice will not be followed by the Liberal Party. I do not know about the National Party, but certainly it will not be followed by the Liberal Party. We will be testing them very shortly on that by introducing a Bill in conformity with the all-party committee report. SERVICES FOR OUTER URBAN AREAS Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - Will the Premier advise the House of progress being made in the government's efforts to deliver infrastructure to the growing urban areas such as Keilor? Ms KIRNER (premier) - I thank the honourable member for his question, and all honourable members representing fast growing areas such as Keilor, Werribee and Berwick for their interest in this matter. It is a key matter. There is no doubt that, because of the failure of both the private sector and the public sector nationally to invest, a number of areas around Melbourne are infrastructure-poor. Infrastructure is a terrible word to use when talking to the community, and I prefer to term it as facilities and community services. I was pleased to announce today, with the Minister for Planning and Housing, that the $10 million urban infrastructure fund which we have set up under the Urban Land Authority (ULA) has announced its first set of projects, and those projects make the government's commitment to improving infrastructure clear in a community sense. The projects include work on the environment, revamping and resiting Coolaroo station to a better access area,bike paths, better services in neighbourhood houses, and giving ethnic communities the chance to have their own centres. But this is not simply an Urban Land Authority enterprise. As they told me this moming, it is an important enterprise from their point of view because the improvements in infrastructure in areas they are developing enhances the value of their properties. But it is also a partnership between the ULA, local government and community organisations. It means the $10 million the ULA is putting into the funds will expand with the assistance of local government, State agencies and community organisations to $48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Th~y,21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 529

million. If you say that figure quickly it does not sound very much money but $48 million in projects carefully sited to improve community facilities and services is about 1500 jobs. It is an important commitment to those areas and that is the kind of practical approach to recovery that my government is part of. In this morning's newspapers I was appalled to read the analysis of the Victorian economy by Access Economics Pty Ltd. The doomsday economists represented by Access brief the doomsday politicians represented by the Hanrahans opposite - the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; that is neither the politics nor the economic theory of my government.

The government is about recovery. Today I met with the Committee for Melbourne; we spelled out a program of economic action for the recovery of Melbourne. In addition to the improvements in the infrastructure, some of which I have outlined today, we will also be involved in revitalising Melbourne as a transport hub - that means port reform and a national rail freight corporation.

We will be involved in the revitalisation of the retail industry which is better in Melbourne than it is in New South Wales. We will be involved in setting up the docklands and casino authorities. A number of action projects are on the table for Melbourne that the big league of business and unions, and government and opposition ought to be behind.

The only missing ingredient in this Committee for Melbourne plan for recovery is the opposition's doomsday and oppositional approach. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr Brown interjected.

Ms KIRNER - The Leader of the Opposition is shaking because I have presented him with a challenge.

The Committee for Melbourne has set down quite clearly a plan for recovery. The opposition is treating every aspect of that plan with contempt.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to work through that vision and that series of projects, and come back to the people of Melbourne with a plan for recovery, not a plan for pushing Melbourne through a recession. INTEREST SWAP TRANSACfION Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I direct a further question, this time to the Premier. I refer to the Treasurer's $35 million expenditure without Parliamentary authority. Given that the Treasurer has breached the fundamental principle of the Westminster system of government that expenditure must be authorised by Parliament, will the Premier require his resignation forthwith or will she dismiss him? 77597/91-18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

530 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - In a fishing expedition yesterday, in one of his usual attempts to bring on debate about Parliamentary reports before they are tabled in this place, the Leader of the Opposition outlined what he thought was the Westminster responsibility. I note that this question is a new definition of Westminster responsibility, but as he is not going to practice it it will not matter if he does not get the definition right. However, the Treasurer in a previous part answer to a question outlined some of the actions that were taken. As the report of the Public Accounts Subcommittee of the Economic and Budget Review Committee unanimously agreed, if it wanted to make the demands politically or in the Westminster sense as the Leader of the Opposition has put it, it could have written but it did not. What it did was to say that the advice was flawed.

It was the Treasurer who referred the issue to the committee because of the questioning of the Auditor-General and his own questioning. In doing that he now has a report that says the advice was flawed. He now has a unanimous recommendation, as does this House, about what we might do about that, such as introducing legislation to address the technical breach. I look forward to the opposition's implementation of the recommendation that opposition committee members as well as government members recommended. WESTERN RING-ROAD UNDERPASS Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Will the Minister for Transport inform the House whether he is taking any action on the need for the construction of a major underpass on the western ring-road at Glenroy.

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - As the honourable member for Warmambool interjects this will affect all Victorians because, as the honourable member for Pascoe Vale rightly outlined, this is important both for Victoria's economic development and for the residents in the electorate he so excellently represents. Pascoe Vale Road has become extraordinarily busy with both car and truck traffic.

This particular funding project of $17.5 million will provide an additional 40 construction jobs and some time next year it will complete the final link between the Tullamarine Freeway and the Hume Freeway. The result will be that much of the truck traffic that now travels along Pascoe Vale Road will be using the link.

The project will tie in with the longer-term project costing $150 million that will assist the transit of truck traffic around rather than through the inner city area. It will provide a vital link to Tullamarine airport.

To ensure that disruption of both road traffic and local community traffic is kept to a minimum VICROADS has developed a new technology including a tunnel that is already in use by heavy trucks. The traffic will not be travelling through local residential streets of Broadmeadows carrying approximately 20 000 loads of material - which I am sure the honourable member for Broadmeadows, the Deputy Premier, will be pleased about - for the project. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Th~y,21~hI991 ASSEMBLY 531

The construction of the underpass will be the first of its type in Australia. The design is an endeavour to minimise road and freight disruption as well as disruption to local roads. Honourable members will be aware there are four rail tracks in the area. The tunnel will be constructed in such a way as to allow the rail traffIc to continue during the construction of the underpasses to the particular roads - Pascoe Vale Road and Electric A venue - and under the railway lines near Jacana railway station. That work will be completed by 1992 and will be of great assistance to the local community in removing the truck traffic. It forms part of the micro-economic reform being undertaken to ensure ,that the goods and services carried by vehicles travelling up and down the country and throughout the State will have the quickest possible access to the airports. INTEREST SWAP TRANSACTION Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer: given that Mallesons Step hen Jaques, solicitors, were retained by Treasury to assist in the drafting of the $300 million purported interest swap contract, why was their advice on the legal and constitutional validity of the arrangement not sought prior to the contract being entered into?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I shall go through the sequence of events again for the benefit of the honourable member for Brighton. He obviously needs this done slowly because of the difficulty he has in understanding; his comments this morning on superannuation demonstrate that! The transaction was entered into after the Auditor-General properly raised issues on it. Legal advice was then sought as to the matters raised by the Auditor-General. That legal ad vice raised other and more fundamental issues in relation to the transaction. It certainly meant that detailed consideration needed to be undertaken, relating not just to the transaction. The Economic and Budget Review Committee has dealt with that; not only the transaction but also the general issue. As a result of the advice from Mallesons - not only on that matter but on other matters - the committee has now suggested some legislative change; and there are four members from the other side who have signed their names to that. One only hopes the honourable member for Brighton will withdraw the comments he has made so far, that the opposition might not agree to pass the legislation that will be introduced. Having had the advantage - and the proper advantage - of the legal ad vice provided to the committee, the opposition then says, "Oh, well, we have to think a bit about whether we pass this legislation or not". As I said, four members of the opposition who sat on that committee have been through all the material and have suggested remedies to the Parliament, not only about the $35 million but about the general issue. The report needs to be taken as a serious report to Parliament. Unlike the honourable member for Brighton, the government takes notice of Parliamentary committee reports .. They are not always fully adopted but in this instance the comnlittee has suggested three PETITIONS

532 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991 sensible pieces of related legislation. The government has made it clear that that is the course it will be following. I look forward to being able to introduce the legislation into Parliament shortly, and also to the four Liberal and National Party members of that committee persuading their colleagues - even if they cannot persuade the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Brighton - to pass the legislation because it would be most unfortunate if it were not passed.

Let '!le just remind the honourable member for Brighton that the committee has suggested three pieces of legislation. The first relates to the $35 million and the government believes that should be cleared up as soon as possible.

The second relates to the netting-off arrangements that have been traditionally followed by Treasury officers under both the previous government and our government, about which Malleson's raised proper legal questions when it was asked to look at the issue.

That is an important issue, and I was pleased to see that that was unanimously suggested as well. Also the committee probably went a bit further than its terms of reference by suggesting that there should be annotated appropriations, referring to the practice in Canberra. That is another useful suggestion, and I have already asked our officers to examine the effect of that practice in Canberra.

As I have said, it is our intention to put forward and hopefully to have passed all three matters. The committee has suggested that should be done in one Bill, and I certainly expect that the four opposition members, who have spent a lot of time on this, will persuade sufficient of their colleagues in the party room that the Bill should pass and so roll the member for Brighton as he deserves to be rolled.

PETITIONS

The Clerk - I have received the following petitions for presentation to Parliament: Family planning services To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assem bled. The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the 20 per cent reduction in the family planning services. We feel very strongly that women of all ages who have relied on this service will be considerably disadvantaged and many put at risk by this negative action. Your petitioners therefore request the House to stop the 20 per cent reduction of the family planning services as actioned by the government of Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Richardson (294 signatures) PAPERS

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 533

Free bus service for country students To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth: Objection to any changes of school bus services which disadvantage country students, forcing students to attend the nearest government school rather than a school of choice served by a school bus service. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that you take all action possible to ensure the provision of free and comprehensive bus services to schools of choice to meet the needs of country students. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mr Evans (185 signatures)

Laid on tab le.

PAPERS Laid on tab le by Clerk: Emergency Services Superannuation Board - Report for the year 1989-90. Metropolitan Fire Brigade Superannuation Board - Report for the year 1989-90. National Gallery of Victoria - Report for the year 1989-90 together with a letter from the secretary with an explanation for the delay in presentation. Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund - Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. State Casual Employees Superannuation Board - Report and Statement of Accounts as at 30 June 1990. State Library of Victoria Council-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90 together with a letter from the director of the council with an explanation for the delay in presentation. Statutory rules under the following Acts: Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 - SR No. 45. Food Act 1984 - SR No. 48 together with copies of Amendment Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8 to the Food Standards Code published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette P3815 December 1989, P29 27 August 1990, P3414 November 1990, P40 20 December 1990, as required by section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 to accompany the statutory rule. Property Law Act 1958 - SR No. 43. Public Service Act 1974 - Public Service Determination Nos 7,8. Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1989 - SR No. 41. Subdi vision Act 1988 - SR No. 44. Tobacco Act 1987 - SR No. 49. Valuation of Land Act 1960 - SR No. 47. Wildlife Act 1975 - SR No. 46.

GRIEVANCES The SPEAKER - Order! The question is: That grievances be noted. GRIEVANCES

534 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I raise in the grievance debate the lack of accountability exhibited by the Treasurer in his actions in this House and in the State. In doing so I reiterate my call that the Treasurer should do the decent thing and vacate his office. This government has been bedevilled by a series of financial scandals that have played a large part in bringing the State to its knees. Victoria is in the midst of one of the worst recessions this country has ever seen, and certainly the worst it has experienced since the 1930s - and as I said, the actions of this Labor government have played a substantial part in putting Victoria in that position. Not only is the government responsible for the fug of depression and lack of confidence in our State, but also it has inflamed a series of crises in the administration of the State's public finances. During question time this morning the Treasurer, as he had done earlier on radio, took a round-arm swing at Access Economics Pty Ltd, which others have described as an authoritative commentator on economic affairs. But one does not need to read the Access Economics analysis because the figures speak for themselves. I shall cite the latest available figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for each of the major economic indicators, which amply demonstrate the relative magnitude of the economic crisis facing Victoria, compared with other States. The ABS figures show that the value of new residential approvals in the most recent year is down 15.5 per cent in Victoria compared with only 5.6 per cent for Australia; and new dwellingunit approvals are down 32.7 per cent over the twelve months to December last, compared with 12.1 per cent for the rest of the country. The value of all building approvals for the year ended January 1991 was down 65 per cent in Victoria and 40 per cent in the rest of Australia. Housing finance for owner occupation for the year to December was down 1.1 per cent in Victoria, an actual decline, compared with an increase of 17.3 per cent in Australia. New housing commencements were down 24 per cent in Victoria and only 5.8 per cent in Australia. Retail sales in real terms for the year to December were down 6.8 per cent in Victoria and only 1.6 per cent in Australia. New vehicle registrations were down 22.5 per cent in Victoria and only half that, 11.1 per cent, in Australia. Statistics for industrial disputes, the much vaunted relationship with the socialist left and the union movement, in Victoria show -- Mr Micallef - Look at the record: it's very good! Mr STOCKDALE - If the honourable member for Springvale regards this as a good record, one hesitates to think what he would be alarmed about. In Victoria there was an increase in the number of days lost of 6.8 per cent for the most recent year compared with a decline of 4.9 per cent in Australia. Although the rest of Australia plunging into recession has seen a reduction in the days lost through industrial disputes, the friends of the honourable member for Springvale - the Wally Currans, the John Halfpennys and the Norm Gallaghers - have inflicted on our State an actual increase of 6.8 per cent. GRIEVANCES

Th~y,21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 535

Private new capital expenditure, seasonally adjusted, is down 7.4 per cent in Victoria compared with only 0.2 per cent in Australia. Bankruptcies are up 65.1 per cent in Victoria for the year to December compared with 56 per cent in Australia. Persons receiving unemployment benefits for the year to November are up 73.7 per cent in Victoria compared with 31 per cent in Australia. Employment, seasonally adjusted, for the year to January was down 2.4 per cent in Victoria and only 0.5 per cent in Australia. Every one of those indicators shows that Victoria is plunging into recession at an alarming rate compared with the rest of Australia. In many instances the rate of decline in Victoria is double, or more than that of the rest of Australia. In critical areas, which the Treasurer referred to earlier today, such as retail sales the decline in Victoria is 6.8 per cent in real terms compared with a decline of only 1.6 per cent for the rest of Australia. The future is even more alarming when one considers the implications of an absolute decline of that magnitude.

The Labor government is responsible for bringing Victoria to its knees. It is clear that Access Economics Pty Ltd is right and that the Treasurer is wrong about the relative performance of Victoria. I turn now to the question of the Treasurer's responsibility and the government's responsibility with respect to superannuation. Superannuation Bills were canvassed by the Treasurer in his answers in question time today but he conveniently omitted to pay any attention to the reforms made in the 1980s - the period in which this government has been in office, and, moreover, the reforms recommended after the most comprehensive investigation of superannuation in this nation's history. A committee of the Victorian Parliament, the Economic and Budget Review Committee, conducted an exhaustive investigation leading up to the publication of its report in 1984. The committee recommended a new superannuation scheme for Victoria, a more responsibly funded scheme, and it made a series of important financial and political judgments. The committee proposed that the government should restructure superannuation: that it should implement a process which would claw back some of the more irresponsible funding elements of the scheme in favour of changing benefit structures. In his answers during question time today the Treasurer omitted to say that the government chose not to adopt the recommendations of that committee. To the contrary, the government gave away the inducements or offsets the committee had contemplated but did not put in place any improvements in the funding arrangements for public sector superannuation. In the debate on the Emergency Services Superannuation Bill on 2 December 1986 I referred to concerns expressed by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Ltd about the financial effects of the reforms the government was then proposing. Contrary to what the Treasurer said in Parliament this morning, continuing the diversion and cover-up, the Liberal Party did not give unqualified endorsement to that legislation. GRIEVANCES

536 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Having referred to the expression of concern by the association about the funding of benefits, as recorded at page 2575 of Hansard, I said: ... the Liberal Party shares the association's concern about the generosity of the benefits proposed and would be doubly concerned if it were proposed that they should become a model for extended superannuation benefits elsewhere in the public sector or generally in the public sector. Therefore, the opposition is on the record as expressing concern abou t the financial implications of what the government was doing. Even more importantly, in the debate on the Superannuation Schemes Amendment Bill, which was debated in this House on 27 November 1985, I made the opposition's concerns crystal clear. I shall quote from volume 380 of Hansard, commencing at page 2447. As recorded at page 2447, I said: The opposition will not oppose the Bill, but I shall make some observations about some of its features, in particular, the failure of the government to address the full scope of the problems raised by the Economic and Budget Review Committee and its failure to implement comprehensively the proposals of that committee. The implementation of those features, particularly the 55 years early retirement scheme, in isolation will somewhat inhibit future full-scale reform of public sector superannuation as proposed by the committee. I went on to refer to the fact that the government had allowed only a few days for consideration of extremely complex proposals, and that the proposals were being rushed through Parliament with inadequate concern. As recorded at page 2449, I pointed out the fact that when we sought briefings the government and the Treasury were unable to provide any costings of the government's proposals or any financial projections of their effect. I went on to express concerns about government superannuation, concerns which were being aggravated by the proposals then before Parliament. The concerns related to: the generosity of the benefits proposed; the generosity of ill-health retirement benefits; the generosity of public sector superannuation schemes; the indexation of pensions; and the unfunded liabilities of the schemes. As recorded at page 2450 of Hansard, I said this about the unfunded liabilities: There is concern about the absolute level of those unfunded liabilities. Given the proposal to maintain the present inadequate funding base, the present proposals will do nothing to overcome the existing unfunded liabilities or to put the future course of the funds on a better footing. I then spoke about the age 55 retirement benefit provisions that the government was proposing in that Bill and said, as recorded at page 2451: Nonetheless, that is not a significant enough benefit, or an excessively generous benefit to the point where the Liberal opposition would wish to act to amend or prevent the passage of these amendments . ... whilst there is no pro-rataing, it exceeds the accrued entitlement of the employee at age 55 and therefore there is a cost to the fund of providing those earlier benefits. I went on to express further concern about the funding implications. As recorded at page 2452, I said: GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 537

I refer now to the fact that it is clear that there will be significant cost increases resulting to the public revenue, that is, to the Budget, as a result of the introduction of this scheme. Therefore, in contradiction of the lies told this morning on radio, the opposition actually directed attention to the fact that the proposals introduced by this government - by the Treasurer's predecessor and the Labor government - would actually result in a significant increase in the cost of superannuation contributions and, in particular, it directed attention to the implications of the additional benefits for age 55 retirement.

Moreover, the short-term cost of those changes would clearly be aggravated by the increased commutation rights introduced by the government.

It is not true to say that nothing has changed since 1988. It is not true for the Treasurer to claim the opposition has endorsed the changes that resulted in the present crisis in superannuation in Victoria. This is one of the major issues facing the people of Victoria, not only in the longer term as to unfunded liability but also in the immediate future in meeting the emerging annual costs of these liabilities.

The Treasurer seized upon one line in the item last night on the 7.30 Report to divert attention away from the major issue identified in that program: that the government has aggravated the funding problems of Victorian superannuation schemes and is now allowing those schemes to accumulate problems on top of problems by a vicious cycle of debt.

It is not sufficient for the Treasurer to pretend there is no problem or that the problem is under control. When asked in Parliament what the government proposed to do about it the Treasurer for nearly 12 minutes delivered a tirade of abuse but did not give any indication of the course of action the government was pursuing. This is another example of a government marked by mismanagement, failure, cover-up and deception. The Treasurer stands accountable for his failure to address one of the major problems facing our community and taxpayers, but his actions do not cease there: the Treasurer is responsible for the actions taken by the government and identified by the Auditor-General. He is accountable for the illegal transaction identified yesterday by a bipartisan Parliamentary committee as being illegal and as having been the subject of a cover-up by the Treasurer.

Still today, the day after Parliament received the committee's report, the Treasurer has failed to produce to the committee, Parliament or the community the documents bearing on the transaction. The Treasurer still has not produced the minute of advice recommending the transaction or the document he personally signed authorising the transaction.

This is not a mere case of a Minister refusing to accept accountability for the actions of his minions or of a government misled by inaccurate advice from consultants or public servants: as the committee recorded, this is a case where the ordinary routine of government was observed. A committee was established to make recommendations to GRIEVANCES

538 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991 the Treasurer; the committee made recommendations and the Treasurer, by his own signature, personally authorised the illegal transaction. This is not a case of Ministerial accountability and responsibility with the Minister removed at arm's length; here the Treasurer is personally and directly implicated in the transaction. The Treasurer put his signature on the documents that authorised the illegal transaction and I put to the House that he did so knowingly. The report and the documents available to the committee show that the Treasurer initiated the central element leading to the illegality of the transaction. It was the decision to seek an up-front payment of $35 million, to get cash in now at the expense of massive increases in the liability of the people of Victoria, that amounted to the illegality. It was that decision that led the Treasurer to authorise expenditure beyond the appropriation by Parliament. Since 1385 Westminster-style Parliaments have made the executive government accountable to Parliament by way of Parliamentary appropriation. For nearly 600 years Treasurers have been responsible for ensuring there was Parliamentary appropriation for government expenditure - it is an essential and central element in the control of Parliament over the executive government. It has existed since the reign of Charles 11 and is a central feature of the democratic processes of our society. The Treasurer has that responsibility, yet in this case is himself the guilty Minister. He is the one who circumvented the authority of Parliament and who stands guilty of having committed an illegal act, of signing the document that authorised the illegal act. If the Treasurer will not resign the Premier has no alternative but to dismiss him. The people of Victoria will not tolerate a Treasurer who consistently acts unlawfully. This is not the first occasion when the Treasurer has acted unlawfully. The findings of the Auditor-General were that no less than $800 million was raised by illegal transactions: fraudulent bonds issued on the pretence that the Board of Works had issued them when, in fact, they had been issued by the Victorian Development Fund. We had the scandal of $316 million raised without Parliamentary authority through the Victorian Development Fund, which was exposed by the Auditor-General in his report last year. That was a blatant, fraudulent, artificial transaction. We had the scandal of the Pyramid Building Society where the Treasurer resiled from commitments made by his predecessor and where the government abandoned people. We had the sale of State Bank Victoria and the disastrous mismanagement of the State Bank and Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. We have a litany of financial scandals such as this State has never seen before, which have sapped confidence in Parliament and the government and have aggravated the underlying economic fundamentals so accurately identified by Access Economics. The Treasurer is a disgrace to his office. He has failed to meet the minimum standards of integrity in the discharge of his statutory and legal responsibilities. The Treasurer has directly authorised an illegal act. There is no question here about some remote government agency having engaged in illegal activities. The Treasurer failed in his GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 539

central responsibility to enforce Parliament's Budget: to ensure that government departments limited their expenditure to the amounts appropriated by Parliament. The Treasurer did so deliberately simply to collect $35 million to hide the fact that he had been unable to balance the Current Account in the Budget. The Treasurer has engaged in political subterfuge at the expense of the people of Victoria, at the expense of the Parliamentary process and at the expense of the legal system. The Treasurer has subverted the Constitution; he has subverted the fundamental principles of the Westminster system of government. The Treasurer must go. If the Treasurer will not resign the Premier must dismiss him. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - Mr Speaker, you would be aware that during the past week I have asked a series of questions seeking clarification of the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry into the meat industry, and the input of the Trades Hall Council and Wally Curran, the Secretary of the Victorian branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, particularly given the Premier's relationship with them. It is correct and appropriate for the government to prepare a submission to this inquiry on the meat industry, particularly because of the problems Victoria has had over the past decade. I want to trace the path of the submission of the government, prepared in July 1990, and take honourable members through the steps that it has gone through. I grieve about the way the Premier has attempted to give the impression that there has been consultation with all sectors of the industry. The Premier is misleading the House because her answers to Parliament, as reported in Hansard, demonstrate how she has given the impression that there has been consultation with industry when that is not the case. On 17 July 1990 the then Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Mr Rowe, wrote to the then Premier, Mr Cain, in these terms: Dear MrCain Industrial Relations Commission Inquiry into Meat Industry The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is conducting a national inquiry into awards and conditions in the meat processing industry. Commissioner Harrison has agreed to receive written submissions from the government of . Victoria and others not party to meat industry awards. The attached submission has been prepared by my office with advice from the Department of Labour. I would be pleased if you would forward it to Commissioner Harrison on behalf of the government of Victoria. The commissioner has stated that submissions must reach him no later than 27 July 1990 and that after that date the documents can be made available to the public. I would be grateful if you would approve the release of the submission to the public after the 27 July. I have forwarded a copy of the document and this letter to the Acting Minister for Labour. That is a clear and precise statement and request from the then Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs who had his department prepare this document and letter to the then Premier asking him to forward the submission on. GRIEVANCES

540 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

The front page of the submission clearly states: Submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into the meat industry, 1990. Government of Victoria 1990. There was no suggestion on the cover of that document that it was a draft document. It was the submission that was prepared by the then Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in consultation with other departments on behalf of the government of Victoria and was intended to be forwarded on to Commissioner Harrison. Of course, what happened about that time was a disturbance in the government and the Premier resigned. The new Premier took office on 10 August, soon after that letter requested that the document be forwarded on to the Harrison meat inquiry. It had not been forwarded on at that time and we have now found a document with an identical front page which states: Submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into the meat industry, 1990-91. Government of Victoria, January 1991. That is a six-month time lag. What has undoubtedly gone on in that time is that the Premier and her department have seen this report on the meat inquiry and, because of the close association between the Premier and Mr Curran, she has been concerned about this document and has sent it down to the Trades Hall Council for comment. That wouJd have been fair if the other parties to this dispute had also been given the opportunity of putting their side of the.case. However, neither the Victorian Farmers Federation, which represents the farmers in this State, nor the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia was given the opportunity of making an input. Mr Wally Curran, Secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU), at the Rural Press Club about three weeks ago openly stated that he had seen the submission and had written a critique on it. Oearly the AMIEU, through the Trades Hall Council, has had the opportunity of having input into that submission. I should like to read a letter from the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF). I asked the President of the VFF, Mr Alex Arbuthnot, whether his association had had any opportunity of commenting on the government's submission to the inquiry. He replied: Dear Bill I would like to clarify comments that have been made regarding discussions between the Premier and me on matters relating to the meat dispute. I have had no consultation and, to my knowledge, neither has anyone else in the Victorian Farmers Federation on the Victorian government's submission to the Harrison inquiry. The Victorian Farmers Federation in its deputation to the Premier on 24 October 1990 presented a submission on a number of issues relating to the rural downturn including the effects that the ongoing industrial disputation in the meat industry was having on farmers' income. The November general council meeting of the VFF was attended by the Premier. At that meeting the Premier was questioned as to whether the Victorian government was preparing a submission to the Harrison inquiry. The Premier responded that they were, and it would be presented by the end of December. GRIEVANCES

Th~y,21~hI991 ASSEMBLY 541

To the best of my knowledge that is the full extent of discussions that any person at the VFF has had with the Premier on this matter. To support that statement, on 18 March I received a letter signed by Kevin Iles, Executive Director of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, which states, in part: In response to your request through Mr Ross Davies, we confirm that Mr Peter Greenham's recollection that only one meeting took place with the Premier, Mrs Kirner, last year is absolutely correct. This meeting took place at Parliament House on Tuesday, November 28, 1990 around 4 p.m. The then Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Mr Barry Rowe, and the Minister for Labour, Mr Neil Pope, were also present. MA TFA was represented by Messrs Peter Castricum, Peter Greenham, George Gilbertson, Jack Morris, John McPhee and the Executive Director of MATFA, Mr Kevin TIes. There were also Ministerial assistants present. Upon research of our file notes reference was made to the meat industry inquiry on a number of occasions. We were all of the understanding the government would be making a submission to the inquiry. MATFA was not given any indication that Mr Barry Rowe had prepared a submission for the government in July 1990. MA TFA was never given the opportunity to have input into any government submission to the inquiry. MATFA was certainly not consulted on the contents. It is interesting that at that meeting on 28 November last year no indication was given that the submission had been prepared by the then Minister for Agriculture and Rural Mfairs, let alone an explanation as to why it had gone from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet down to the Trades Hall Council and to the AMIEU. The fact that the Premier did not come out with a forthright statement that a submission existed and that it had gone to the Trades Hall Council is indicative of a considerable cover-up, and I would value some input from the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia because it is a very Significant player in all the disputes that have taken place. I should now like to outline the differences between the submission originally prepared in July 1990 and the final submission that went to the Harrison meat inquiry. The original document contained 36 pages but the submission presented to the inquiry was a 25-page document. Omitted from the original submission were: references to statistical data on the Victorian industry and comparison with the Queensland and New South Wales industries; the commissioned report of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on value-adding opportunities for agriculture - specifically cost structures in Victoria's meat processing sector - and references to the Victorian government offering assistance to the commission to advance the development of industrial harmony in the meat processing industry. They are significant deletions and I shall outline how important those deletions were to the meat processing sector in Victoria. The total weight production has declined from 200 000 tonnes to 120 000 tonnes and from 152 000 tonnes to 120 000 since 1980. Figure 2.4, which was also deleted from the original document, highlights the decline in economic importance of the meat industry in Victoria in 1980-81 to 1986-87 compared with other agribusiness industries. Also deleted was the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimate of 45 200 working days lost due to industrial action in the Victorian meat processing industry between May and GRIEVANCES

542 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

November 1989, and specific quotes with respect to opportunities to develop trade in meat with important emerging markets which could be jeopardised by instability in the Victorian meat industry. I quote: To successfully compete in the international market Victoria needs to develop in reputation for a reliable and efficient delivery. Also deleted was this quote: The importance of the meat processing industry to the State's long-term stability in the meat processing industry is imperative for the future benefit of the industry and the Victorian economy. A very true statement! Also deleted from the original document was mention of the structure and productivity of the meat processing industry in Victoria. There was a complete deletion of background discussion comparing the Queensland and New South Wales industries in order to provide a context for considering the performance of the Victorian meat processing industry. It deleted table 3.1 which indicates the long-term decline in the number of slaughter establishments on a national basis, with the greatest decline occurring in Victoria. It deleted this statement: The decline in employment has been especially significant in Victoria where the number employed in the meat processing Jndustry has declined from a peak of 15 000 in 1972-73, the highest for any State in Australia, to under 6000 in 1986-87. The submission deleted figures 3.1 and 3.2 referring to the decline in slaughtering establishments by selected States and employment in slaughtering establishments by selected States. It also deleted this statement:

However, the past flexibility to producers to switch between agricultural enterprises may become limited if future processing and marketing opportunities are reduced by a significant decline in the meat processing sector. It deleted figure 3.6 which shows the trends' in selected meats by export and local abattoirs in Victoria for cows, vealers and lambs. It deleted figure 3.7 which shows that the greatest decline in total meat exports occurred in Victoria compared with New South Wales and Queensland. There was a deletion of discussion OIl interstate trading for livestock shown in sections 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 and figures 3.11 and 3.12 which highlight estimated net balance of production of beef, veal and lamb after consideration of stock movements across the Victorian border. There are further deletions in section 3.3, under the heading "Industrial disputation statistics and productivity in the Victorian meat processing industry". Deleted were pages 22 and 23 and tables 3.13 and 3.14 which show the "total number of workers involved in industrial disputes" and "working days lost due to industrial disputes respectively" . GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 543

The Victorian meat industry is in a very sorry state. It is heavily reliant on export earnings. In January 78 000 bullocks went from Victoria to Queensland. The road transport cost is $80 per 100 head of cattle. That is a loss of export earnings but it is also a loss of jobs and profit for meat processing companies and revenue to the farmers who have to pay freight on those movements. Those freight functions take place when the offer is made by the livestock buyer. I wish the Harrison National Meat Inquiry great success. It must do something to come to terms with the industrial disputes in the Victorian meat industry, which is very important. I am critical of the Premier of Victoria on this subject because I believe she has been biased in allowing the Trades Hall Council and, subsequently, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to have input in that submission while denying the same opportunity to the growers body of the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation. It is crucial that the government place submissions before inquiries as important as the Harrison inquiry. The inquiry should go forward with either full consultation of all people or no consultation from one sector without consultation from the other side. I believe the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry has been biased. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - On the adjournment debate on 18 October last year the honourable member for Glen Waverley raised a matter concerning the Ron Legge case and alleged that new information had come to his attention. The allegation which he made under protection of Parliamentary privilege - and which he was careful not to adopt outside the House - was that the solicitor Mr John McArdle had given different answers to sworn interrogatories in the case which impeached his credibility. The honourable member suggested that the case should be reopened. Under the protection of Parliamentary privilege, which, in a subsequent letter he was very careful not to adopt outside the Parliament, he said in a 1976 case of Legge v. Winter and Ors, an answer was sworn on 23 February 1976 that said Mr John McArdle signed the disbursement authority. In relation to the 1987 case of McArdle v. The ABC he said he swore an answer on 28 August 1989 that states that Mr McArdle did not sign the disbursement authority. The honourable member for Glen Waverley said, and I quote from Hansard: Surely those answers cannot lie comfortably together. I call on the Attorney-General, firstly, to help with getting legal aid for Mr Legge and, secondly, to have a full judicial inquiry into the Legge case because the matter has dragged on for twenty years. Clearly it was the assertion of the honourable member that Mr McArdle had sworn inconsistent answers. The truth of the matter is very different. I have received legal advice on the matter from the Victorian Government Solicitor and the obvious point­ which seems not to be obvious to the honourable member for Glen Waverley - is that the answers he referred to were not sworn by Mr McArdle. Rather, the early answer in GRIEVANCES

544 ASSEMBLY Thu~y,21~hl991

the 1976 action to which Mr McArdle was not even a party was, in fact, sworn by another person, Mr Bruce Curl, a partner of the firm. Therefore an inconsistency does not arise as the two sets of answers were sworn by two separate individuals. Indeed, even putting that point to one side - and it is almost inescapable as to how it could be put aside on a careful analysis of the interrogatories and commercial transactions - I am now advised by the Government Solicitor that, in his opinion, the interrogatories are directed to different transactions. Not only was it not the case that the person - who was the subject of the savage personal attack under the protection of Parliamentary privilege by the honourable member for Glen Waverley - swore both sets of answers but they were different transactions, and the answers are neither contradictory nor inconsistent in any event. The early interrogatories, Nos 30 and 31, sworn in February 1979, are directed to payments "net loan funds" from Carlton and United Breweries Ltd (CUB), the lender, to the legal firm of Williams, Winter and Higgs. The later interrogatories, Nos 24 to 26, sworn in August 1989 are directed to a subsequent disbursement of that amount "net loan funds" out of the trust account of Williams, Winter and Higgs at the direction of Allied Hotel Holdings Ltd, the borrower, in amounts and to persons not identified. The legal advice, which is obviously correct, is that there is no inconsistency and no contradiction and that the honourable member for Glen Waverley has got it wrong. In my view a public apology to Mr McArdle is called for. The honourable member for Glen Waverley has raised this matter on a number of occasions in the House and, in one way or another, he has always sought to make an allegation that has been found by no fewer than four judges in this State to be unfounded. The honourable member has made allegations about the failure of the criminal justice system and has questioned the integrity of the Attorney-General's Department and a substantial number of counsel, the current Director of Public Prosecutions in the Northern Territory and the former Director of Public Prosecutions in this State among numerous others. I take exception to the accusations that have been the subject of total and abject apologies from the producers of the television program that was led on to make them by the honourable member for Glen Waverley, and I intend to outline a brief history of the matter so the public record can disclose once and for all the truth of the matter and the way in which the honourable member for Glen Waverley has gone about things. I shall refer also to a judgment of the Supreme Court indicating that it is the honourable member for Glen Waverley who has made inconsistent allegations rather than anyone else. The matter concerned a loan and purchase transaction for the Moe Hotel during 1970 when Mr McArdle was a young, employee solicitor of Williams, Winter and Higgs. He was working under the direction of his principal in connection with a loan transaction from CUB, which paid some $200 000 into the solicitor's trust account. Some $153 000 of that was subsequently paid to Mr Legge. Some fourteen years later Mr McArdle was GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 545

charged on one count of conspiracy and one count of fraudulent conversion. The allegation was that he omitted to account for funds received on behalf of Mr and Mrs Legge. The charges received considerable publicity and the matter was canvassed on television. I say that because one can imagine the damage done to Mr McArdle and his family from that time onwards. The injustice is highlighted by the way in which certain people have been concerned to continue what can best be described as an obsessive vendetta of peculiar viciousness. On 10 August 1984 Mr McArdle was committed for trial on both counts to the sitting of the County Court commencing on 3 September 1984. In February 1985 the solicitors for Mr McArdle applied to the Director of Public Prosecutions to enter a nolle prosequi on the basis that there was no evidence to sustain the charges against Mr McArdle. The then Director of Public Prosecutions, John Coldrey, QC, following normal procedure at the time, sought and obtained independent advice, and the advice has been made public. In his memorandum granting the nolle prosequi Mr Coldrey states: I have examined this matter with great care because of the sense of grievance which is clearly felt by Mr Legge at his treatment by the legal profession in general. The memorandum further states: Because I regard this matter as an important one, I have caused the material to be examined not only by the manager of the commercial crime group, Ms Julienne Parsons, but by counsel responsible for the conduct of the committal proceedings in this matter, Mr Brian Doyle, who is an experienced commercial lawyer and by my solicitor, Mr John Buckley. Finally I have had the benefit of an analysis of the material by Crown Counsel Mr Len Flanagan, QC. I note that the Northern Territory government, which is not of the colour of the Labor Party, has recently appointed Mr Flanagan as its Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Coldrey further states: I am comforted by the fact that each of them independently has arrived at the opinion which I myself hold. As to the advice of Mr Brian Doyle, Mr Coldrey states: Evidence of guilt is so insubstantial that I seriously question the rightness of proceeding with either of the charges. With the unanimous advice of Mr Doyle, Ms Parsons and Mr Buckley, and the current Director of Public Prosecutions for the Northern Territory, Mr Coldrey, the then Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, entered a nolle prosequi on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the Crown obtaining a conviction given the insufficiency of evidence to be relied upon. In November 1986 the informant in the matter requested the Supreme Court to empanel a grand jury. As the Victoria Police Association correctly says, the grand jury is an antiquated, outmoded procedure held in secret where only one side of the evidence is heard without the benefit of representation or even the presence of the person accused. GRIEVANCES

546 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

As a result of that outmoded procedure and after hearing only one side of the evidence, the grand jury returned a bill of indictment for Mr McArdle to stand trial in relation to the two alleged offences. I indicate that the government wants to abolish the grand jury procedure, as do most other commentators, including the Police Association in this State. Mr Coldrey, QC, having previously entered the nolle prosequi against Mr McArdle, was of the opinion that it was not appropriate for him to take further action in the matter. He referred the matter to me under section 9A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which empowers the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer a matter to the Attorney-General if a conflict exists or if the director believes it is in the interests of justice. I sought advice from Mr Morrish, QC, who said he reviewed the material provided by the police and the depositions of the committal proceedings. He said that even accepting at its highest Mr Legge's version of the matter, it was his opinion that the evidence was insufficient to prove charges against Mr McArdle. On 2 April 1987 counsel for the prosecution informed the court that the Attorney-General did not intend to lead evidence and the judge then directed that the defendant be acquitted on all charges. Applications for legal aid have subsequently been made by Mr Legge as have applications to the Law Institute of Victoria for compensation from the guarantee fund and an application by the honourable member for Glen Waverley for access to documents containing the legal advice. The history of this matter is extremely interesting. It is important to note that there have been numerous media reports about it and allegations have been made in this House about the propriety of the Attorney-General's Department, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the various counsel and prosecutors involved. I refer to the grievance debate in this House on 3 March 1988 when the honourable member for Glen Waverley raised the matter and called for a public inquiry. He directly implicated the Attorney-General's Department in some sort of conspiracy theory and cast grave doubts on the administration of justice in this State. As an example of the obsessive nature of the allegations, the honourable member referred to a 1966-67 calendar showing the graduation lists of the University of Melbourne where it appeared that Mr John McArdle, Mr John Coldrey, now a QC, and a former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr Morrish, now a QC, were all members of the same graduation class. It was then pronounced that each of those men might reasonably have been expected to be familiar with each other during their student and subsequent professional years and that the matter had the smell of a conspiracy of an old boys network. The honourable member for Glen Waverley continued with the conspiracy theory when he later said that Mr Philip Mandie, Secretary of the Ethics Committee of the Victorian Bar Council and who rejected Mr Legge's complaint, had also been a member of the same graduation class. In the mind of the honourable member for Glen Waverley, that GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 547

was evidence of some sort of conspiracy, and one needs only to state that proposition to see how extraordinary it is. The conspiracy theory would be funny if it were not so serious. The honourable member for Glen Waverley said also that the handling of the case was some sort of socialist plot to interfere with justice. That is extraordinary because at the relevant time Mr McArdle was a paid-up member of the Liberal Party. It is extraordinary that the allegation of a socialist conspiracy has been made against the people involved. These matters are dealt with in the judgment of Judge Higgins in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where he said:

(4) There was no evidence whatsoever of any misconduct by either the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions or solicitors employed in their respective offices. In the Tribunal's opinion, all individuals involved in the prosecution acted with conspicuous diligence and integrity. In the Full Court in December 1989 three judges, after referring to the conspiracy theory, said in relation to a retraction made by the honourable member for Glen Waverley:

In our view the disclaimer now made by the respondent is irreconcilable with those matters and with references in his Grievance Speech in similar terms to those to which we have referred. The judges then went on to say:

Moreover, examination of the evidence of Or Davidson and Mr Morrish does not appear to us to disclose a little of evidence from which a fair-minded person could have concluded there was a conspiracy or improper conduct as alleged by the respondent. Four judges of this State have said what they think of the way the honourable member opposite has proceeded in this matter. I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions: the comments of the judges make the matter very clear. One must ask about the state of mind of a person such as the honourable member for Glen Waverley who has the audacity to raise this matter again after all that has happened and wants to go on and denigrate and disgrace for no good reason one man's reputation and the system of criminal justice in this State.

The same case has been encouraged and fed by him in the media. I refer to when the honourable member appeared on the 7.30 Report in 1987 and defamed me and the office of the Attorney-General in such a way that it was unquestionably calculated to undermine the public confidence in the system of criminal justice. On 1 May 1987 on 3LO radio I was again defamed. I immediately instructed my solicitors to institute proceedings for defamation against the ABC in order to obtain a retraction. Not surprisingly, because there was not one scrap of truth in what the honourable member said or in the media reports, I received a very full and prompt total apology from the ABC. In relation to the 7.30 Report of 13 November 1987 the following apology was made: GRIEVANCES

548 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

In our coverage of the grand jury criminal case raised against Mr John McArdle we interviewed Mr Ross Smith, Liberal member for Glen Waverley. Well, the ABC wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that may have arisen from that interview that the Attorney-General, Mr Kennan, acted in any way improperly in the case. The ABC apologises to Mr Kennan in respect of any such suggestion. In relation to the 3LO radio report of 13 November 1987 the following was broadcast: On this program, on Friday ... last statements were made which reflected adversely on the Attorney-General, Jim Kennan, in relation to the grand jury criminal case against Mr John McArdle. The ABC is satisfied that there was no basis for any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the Attorney-General and apologises to him for what was said. The ABC dissociated itself from the honourable member opposite and gave a total retraction and admitted that there was not a shred of evidence regarding this matter. Four judges, including the Court of Appeal, agreed. That is not enough for the honourable member opposite and he is persisting with this matter. Mr E. R. Smith - Who won the case? Mr KENNAN -It seems that the trial by media continued in the 7.30 Report on 30 January this year when certain matters were again repeated without foundation in a reckless and irresponsible way. That is particularly irresponsible because that organisation had already apologised and totally withdrawn its previous remarks. The history of this matter shows that the criminal justice system has worked fairly and impartially in this State and that Mr McArdle, who has been acquitted, was properly acquitted. He never received any financial benefit as a result of the transaction in 1970. He has been the victim of a continuing personal vendetta by the honourable member opposite, who wants to raise these things under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr E. R. Smith - He was never tried. Mr KENNAN - He knows very well he has been condemned now by many for what he has been doing. Mr McArdle has suffered enormous damage as a lawyer and person in the community. He is a family man with five children and the court proceedings and these media reports have no doubt caused untold strain on them. In light of the fact that four judges have said there was no evidence to support the constant allegations made by the honourable member opposite, and the other comments I have referred to, it is quite extraordinary that the honourable member took the course of action that he did. It is time the record was set straight. I regret having to raise these issues, Mr Speaker, but they were raised again last November and the record - particularly the judgments of the court and the legal opinions that have been tabled - speaks for itself. For an individual in this community without the protection of Parliamentary privilege to be subject to these sorts of repeated attacks is a very sad reflection on what the honourable member opposite has done. The SPEAKER - Order! The Attomey-General's time has expired. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 549

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) - I use this opportunity of the grievance debate to respond in part to the Minister's findings. There was at no stage during this -- Mr Micallef - Apologise! Mr E. R. SMITH - There was at no stage during this harangue by the Minister any indication of the role played by Mr Frank Hender, who originally put Mr McArdle up for trial. At no stage did the Minister talk about the role of the Prosecutor for the Queen, Mr Joe Dickson, and his role in not leading any evidence. I have given the Minister conflicting affidavits on this point. At no stage did he bring these points forward. The Minister knows this is just the beginning of this case because there is no way that people are going to let up now. Recently on the ABC 7.30 Report a story went to air concerning the role played by Mr Dickson in this case and how he led no evidence and stopped the accused, Mr McArdle, from going into the court. At no stage has there been a trial. This Minister has done everything in his power to stop this case going to trial and to prevent the proper processes of law from proceeding. This is not the matter I wanted to grieve about today. The Attorney-General will be hearing much more about this case before I have finished. As a result of the conflicting documents I have recently given the Minister, I hope he will have the decency to give me the written responses from the new Government Solicitor. I raise a matter concerning a recent riot within Pentridge Prison. I call on the government to make public the details of this riot. When I raised the matter in the House last week the Minister for Police and Emergency Services responded to my claims and said, speaking of me: He suggested there was a riot and that a number of people were involved. Those matters were denied when I had them checked this morning. That would imply there had been no riot. In my previous statement to the House I said that the matter had occurred seven weeks ago. In that instance only was I wrong; the matter occurred on 11 November last year. It happened in HM Melbourne Remand Centre in Spencer Street and eight prison officers were injured. I will list the sequence of events that are known from information provided by prison officers, some of whom were injured in the fracas that occurred on that afternoon. On that day a well-known prisoner who is currently before the courts - so I will not give his name - held a Rohypnol party, and that had been carrying on for some considerable time during the day in the remand centre. This information has been corroborated by up to twelve different prison officers who have rung me since then following the Minister's denial that this occurred. At 4.30 in the afternoon a prisoner named Drinken had gone from his unit, which was unit 7, to unit 1. He was later escorted back to unit 7 in a distressed state induced by drugs. Between 4.30 and 4.40 a code yellow was flashed, which meant there had been a fight going on. A senior prison officer named Vincent was injured in that fight. Drinken was left in his cell. GRIEVANCES

550 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

He later escaped and went into what is called the holding yard, and he was spotted by Chief Prison Officer Riley and Senior Prison Officer Vincent, who had been injured earlier. They signalled another code yellow which meant that there was trouble, and a number of officers reported to the yard in front of unit 4.

Six to eight officers were then required to go into this group of prisoners and try to subdue prisoner Drinken. At this stage I am told there were between 15 and 30 prisoners in that yard. Shortly afterwards between 80 and 120 prisoners suddenly converged on the group. These figures come from various people who have called in on this issue. One prison officer said all he could see when forced onto the ground was a sea of legs, and that it all happened very quickly.

Fortunately the 8 prison officers who were injured did not put up any resistance because they said their lives would have been put at risk. There were 23 officers on station that night and about 10 or 12 were involved in the riot. Those officers included Chief Prison Officer Riley, Senior Prison Officers Vincent and Brazier and Prison Officers Andrews and Mansfield. There was also a female prison officer whose name was Webber. They are 5 of the 8 officers who, according to the Minister were not injured, and "there was no incident at the prison". Blood was drawn for 3 or 4 of them.

It is very serious for the Minister to say that he was not told; that there had been no incident at all in the prison. I am not saying that the Minister is in any way was misleading the House but I am saying that the Office of Corrections attempted to stop the knowledge of the incident getting to the Minister and they did this so that the matter could be hushed up. It is a serious matter that 8 prison officers were injured inside the Melbourne Reception Centre.

Following that incident the prison officers managed to take the prisoner to the medical centre. He was restrained there, a body belt was used as well as handcuffs. On the same night at about 7 p.m. a code blue was flashed, which meant that a fight between 2 prisoners was taking place, so they decided to lock down the prison.

A fourth and final incident occurred when 32 prisoners from unit 2 refused to be locked away. I am told that high tension ensued until eventually the prisoners were coaxed into their cells. As one prison officer said, the tension was so extreme that the situation could have exploded.

The fact that 5 prison officers I have named and another 3 whose names I do not have were injured is surely by anyone's definition a riot occurring in the prison.

These people have come to me because they say nothing has happened since and they still feel very insecure within the prison. One of them said, ''We have limited riot gear". After the riot prison officers asked for a health and safety officer - and this ought to appeal to the honourable member for Springvale - to come forward and investigate. This request was refused and they believe the request was refused because the Office of Corrections wanted to keep the matter quiet. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 551

For an incident such as this to be hushed up we have to wonder what is going on within the prison system. As the prison officers who contacted me have said, as a result of this incident their morale has again fallen because the Office of Corrections is trying to brush the matter under the table. That is the reason for reporting the matter to the coalition's police and emergency services committee.

My information is that the Office of Corrections directed the governor to tell the prison officers to keep quiet about the riot, and threats were made concerning the chances of promotion, for those who were seeking it, if they did speak out.

If the House needs any more verification of this incident surely it is present in the WorkCare claims that have been lodged following the injuries to the prisoners. If these are checked the Minister might then be prepared to let the House know the full story.

The worst part is that when I blew the whistle on this matter in the House a week ago I am told that the governor of the prison sent an officer around throughout the administrative area to try to find any documents or incident reports on the matter so that it could be completely and utterly hushed up.

I am told that the party was allowed and the incident occurred because the prison has a unit management program, which is the latest brainchild of the Office of Corrections. Within the program prisoners are put in a group therapy situation and are counselled by social workers, psychologists and various other unit management type people who are attempting to give the prisoners some new form of rehabilitation.

As one of the prisoners who has since contacted us has also said ''We are not given anything there that will help us when we get out to readjust or find a job", which is the prisoners' main aim when they are released.

The morale in the prison system is nearing zero and I am told that prison officers are very concerned about the practice within the gaols that is condoned at the moment whereby prisoners are found in a drunken or drug-induced stupor and are returned to their cells and allowed to sleep it off.

Trained senior prison officers advise me that prisoners should be charged and denied contact visits as a result instead of just being taken back to their cells and told "sleep it off". They should be punished in a way that will make the jobs of the prison officers within the prison system meaningful because when this type of action is condoned it is really a case of the prisoners thumbing their noses at the officers, and this is very demeaning for the officers.

The officers say that the ordinary rules should apply whereby a prisoner found with drugs is subjected to four weeks denial of contact visits on the first offence, three months denial on the second, six months on the third offence, and finally on the fourth offence contact visits are denied for twelve months. During that period visitors are not allowed contact visits with prisoners; they are allowed to see each other only through mesh screens. GRIEVANCES

552 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Another situation of concern at the Melbourne Remand Centre (MRC) is the number of female prison officers. Apparently the MRC has the highest percentage of female officers of any Victorian prison. Some very much lack experience because they went direct from the prison officers training course - now reduced to twelve weeks with two weeks at Pentridge Prison - into their occupation at the MRC. Prison officers are extremely concerned about the training provided for their fellow officers. A senior officer of the prison was sent to collect files and incident reports. I have taken the precaution of lodging a freedom of information application and I hope the reports have not been shredded as happened in another instance when people did not want certain files to be read. The Office of Corrections is very anxious that the matter should not be publicised. One of its sacred cows, the unit management scheme, is under threat. That scheme has resources pumped into it at the expense of the prison officers who have been denied the opportunity of working overtime. Apparently some of the prison divisions are being closed down. Economy measures have led to lights being turned off and some of the towers at Pentridge are not being manned due to cutbacks in funds for the Office of Corrections. The situation has worsened the morale of prison officers and has caused many to say to the opposition, "Can't something be done, can't there be an inquiry?" They are frightened to come forward and complain. I understand that last Monday night, following the report I called for, a number of meetings were held at Pentridge. I am told the prison governor said, "If you think things are bad at this stage, they are going to get worse". The morale of prison officers is low and something drastic must be done urgently. The community expects the government to administer prisons in an effective manner. Last week a riot was averted at Pentridge. Two prisoners who happened to be brothers were sent for punishment to H Division. Other prisoners threatened to bum the place down if the brothers were not returned to B Division. The two brothers were returned to B Division and consequently the morale of prison officers was further damaged because they believed the Office of Corrections should have persevered with the punishment; bu t officials had backed down. The prison officers felt bad about that action.

Victoria is at a stage where something will explode within the prison system if action is not soon taken along the lines suggested by experienced prison officers. The opposition is almost daily receiving reports from disgruntled prison officers who say they are not being properly backed; they are observing practices that should not happen. No action is taken when such practices are brought to the attention of the authorities. Goodness knows what the government is doing with its cutbacks! Unless something drastic is done the prison system will explode. I want the Minister to respond about the incident that occurred in the late afternoon of 11 November last, which I have reported today to the House. I want to know what action is being taken by the government to ensure that such an incident does not occur again. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 553

What action is being taken by the Office of Corrections to restore the confidence of prison officers whose job it is to maintain Victorian prisons? Confidence must be restored to the system because the morale of prison officers is so low at the moment they consider it is hardly worth while doing their jobs.

Another matter that must be taken on board by the government concerns work within the prisons. No satisfactory work is being performed but the opposition will raise that matter at another date.

The opposition calls for an urgent report about the November incident, and will not accept the report from the Office of Corrections that nothing occurred. I have the evidence; let the government come clean.

Mr rnOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - The matter about which I grieve concerns Westpac Banking Corporation and its treatment of Mr and Mrs Ron and Jan Home of Glen Waverley. Actually they are constituents of the honourable member for Glen Waverley who has already featured prominently this morning. He referred this matter to me because it concerns not only Westpac but also the directors of Lazaway Pools Pty Ltd whose activities I have raised on two previous occasions in the House - once in 1989 and again last year. On those occasions I was principally concerned with consumer affairs issues but this morning I refer to corporate affairs issues.

Mr and Mrs Home were and still are the directors of a company called Blue Lake Swimming Pools Pty Ltd which built swimming pools. It was a small family company which had built up a reputation for constructing quality pools. However, in 1988 and 1989 they were not constructing pools because their main area of activity had centred around a shop that retailed swimming pool parts, equipment and accessories; that shop remained separate throughout.

In late 1988 Mr and Mrs Horne were approached by Mr Clive Wright and Mr Michael Mayo. I have previously informed the House of some of their activities as directors of Leisure Mutual Swimming Pool Company (Vic.) Pty Ltd and later, Lazaway Pools. Mr Wright and Mr Mayo offered to purchase and to operate Mr and Mrs Home's company, Blue Lake Swimming Pools, for $75 000.

I do not know how well Mr and Mrs Horne understood the situation at the time, but Mr Wright and Mr Mayo wanted to obtain their good name and reputation. Mr Wright and Mr Mayo wanted to do this because they were well down the track of ruining the reputation of Lazaway Pools and other companies with which they were associated through their outrageous treatment of customers.

In particular, what Blue Lake had that Mr Wright and Mr Mayo wanted was membership of the Swimming Pool and Spa Industry Association of Victoria Ltd (SPASA).To its credit the association would not and continues not to allow Mr Wright and Mr Mayo to become members because of the damage they do to the industry's reputation. GRIEVANCES

554 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

In late 1988 Mr and Mrs Home, together with Mr Wright and Mr Mayo, signed a letter of intent. I have a copy of that letter; it contains a number of provisions that I wish to outline to the House, including:

A. That the vendors agree to assign a management company chosen by the partners and agreed upon by all the parties to ensure the viable and profitable operation of Blue Lake Swimming Pools Pty Ltd ... until a final agreement is achieved. B. That in consideration of the appointment of the management company the vendors agree to accept...$75 OOO ... an initial deposit of $5000 upon signing of this letter and the balance at the rate of $100 per pool sold by Blue Lake Swimming Pools Pty Ltd for the next 700 pools. The vendors, Mr and Mrs Home were to continue as directors and they were to liaise with the SP ASA to keep up the facade that they were still in charge of the company. The partnership through the company would provide management, marketing and ad vertising services.

The agreement was to commence from Monday, 21 November. A formal written contract was to be created within twelve months of the date the letter of intent was signed. Mr Wright and Mr Mayo did pay the $5000 deposit but they did not pay another cent. They certainly did not pay any of the lots of $100 for pools built by Blue Lake Swimming Pools Pty Ltd and sold after 21 November as the letter of intent agreed.

They dawdled in drawing up the contract. They asked Mr and Mrs Horne to sign guarantees for building and property they leased. Fortunately Mr and Mrs Home refused to do that. Nevertheless throughout this period Wright and Mayo operated as Blue Lake Swimming Pools.

In August 1989, the SPASA got wind of what was going on and kicked Blue Lake Swimming Pools out of the association. In August the Homes became anxious about whether Wright and Mayo were fair dinkum about completing the contract and they were worried about what was actually being done with their company. They said their accountants would do the company's tax return, but from the period of August 1989 to January 1990 Wright and Mayo would not provide the books to enable Mr and Mrs Home's accountants to undertake the necessary inspections to prepare the tax return.

Eventually on 26 January 1990 Wright and Mayo said "We do not want your company any more; you can have it back". The company had been kicked out of SP ASA and it was no longer much use or any value to them. They disappeared into the night to look for other reputable companies to which they could parasitically attach themselves without becoming directors.

Earlier I informed the House about the modus operandi of Lazaway Pools regarding customers; this was its corporate modus operandi. I have been told by the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) that at least six companies Australia-wide are controlled by the Mayo-Wright group, even though their names do not appear as directors. I am further told that Mr Wright is even now negotiating with a reputable Melbourne company with an intention of following a similar course. Their capacity to gain control of GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 555

companies virtually willy-nilly and without being listed as directors makes it hard for people like me who are trying to warn consumers about some of the traps in our society. But the real reason why Wright and Mayo have been able to get away with their actions and to ruin Blue Lake Swimming Pools without honouring their letter of intent and without becoming directors was that Westpac Banking Corporation, in breach of proper banking conventions, allowed them to establish an account in the name of Blue Lake Swimming Pools Pty Ltd and operate it without once obtaining the signatures of the directors.

If you or I went to the bank and sought to open an account in the name of Elders IXL Ltd, for obvious reasons, we would be met with a number of obvious requirements. By banking convention, we would be required to produce a memorandum and articles of association and the relevant company microfiche. That microfiche would identify the directors of the company who alone have the power to open or transfer bank accounts. A bank authorisation sheet allows persons other than directors to become signatories to an account but then only with the express authority of the directors. In the case of Ron and Jan Horne, this authority was never provided. One can imagine the surprise for Mr and Mrs Horne when they discovered there was a Blue Lake Swimming Pools account being operated by Wright and Mayo. Many transactions were made on the account - more than one might have expected or realistically envisaged through swimming pool construction alone. Mr and Mrs Home believed the account has been used for money laundering and tax avoidance. They, the honourable member for Glen Waverley and I have discussed these issues with the officers of the ASC and it was suggested that company executives can avoid taxation by providing loans of $HX) 000 each year to a private company that they own entirely. That money is not taxable in their hands because the loan is liable to be repaid at any time, but the executive never repays the money. The private company eventually conveniently goes broke. The Blue Lake Swimming Pools company may have been used for this purpose. Mr and Mrs Home got Westpac to freeze the account but to date they have got no further. At best, Westpac transactions have deprived the Homes of the prospect of selling their company for a substantial gain and at worst the so far unclear activities of the Blue Lake Swimming Pools company have potentially exposed them to substantial debts which are not of their making. I have in my"hands numerous items of correspondence between Mr and Mrs Home and Westpac. In a letter of 23 August, the Westpac manager admits the account in question was opened by the Glenwood Management Group - Wright and Mayo - and that Glenwood had told the Westpac branch that it had taken over Blue Lake Swimming Pools at Mr and Mrs Horne's request. Clearly that is not good enough. It would be outrageous if I were to go to a bank to open an Elders IXL account merely by telling the bank manager that I was doing it with John E1liot's approval. GRIEVANCES

556 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Despite all this, in correspondence of 23 August, Westpac said the funds in the account of approximately $3500 would be released on the written request of the Homes and the senior executives of Glenwood management - Mr Wright and Mr Mayo. Clearly that kind of action will not happen. On 3 December, Westpac State Manager, Special Projects, wrote to the Homes saying the bank had no responsibility to the Homes.

I have sought to discuss this matter with Westpac, but so far my calls have not been returned. I do not accept that Westpac can wash its hands of this matter so readily. It was clearly in the wrong in allowing the account to be opened and its conduct now is reminiscent of what happened with the foreign exchange scandal- using its superior financial resources to avoid paying Mr and Mrs Home their due, which is $100 for every Blue Lake pool built.

Mr and Mrs Home have also contacted the Banking Ombudsman to investigate the matter but he is not empowered to investigate company accounts. They asked their solicitors, Minter Ellison, to initiate legal action, but Minter Ellison said it could not because it also acts for Westpac. If the solicitors had a conflict of interest they should have advised the Homes of that at the outset.

Meanwhile the Wright-Mayo juggernaut rolls on. The winding up procedures that have been initiated by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to Lazaway Pools have been defended and there is a challenge to the sales tax regime under which Lazaway Pools are said to owe substantial sums to the Australian Taxation Office. Even if that challenge is successful, advice to me suggests that the company is deeply in debt to the order of $1 million and it would not be capable of surviving.

With these gentlemen it is not enough that the company should be put out of business because any honourable member who watches Channel 10 can see that Lazaway Pools Pty Ltd is still advertising. However, if challenged as to how the company can be advertising when it is staring bankruptcy in the face, it is pointed out that the advertisements are not for Lazaway Pools Pty Ltd, but for Lazaway Pools and Spas Pty Ltd!

The change of names of companies is a device by which proper responsibilities can be avoided, that is, responsibilities in respect of taxation and to consumers. Mr Wright and Mr Mayo have been clever enough to discover that the owner of the In-Ground Pool Construction Company - who had testified in one of the many court cases against them - had not properly registered his business name. They slipped off to the Corporate Affairs Victoria office and registered the business name, so he no longer has the use of that company name.

The two gentlemen have a raft of companie~ in which they are able to continue in business. The situation is such that, even if Lazaway Pools - or any other company associated with Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd - is wound up, although provision exists under section 600 of the Commonwealth legislation relating to corporations for directors to be prevented from managing a company for five years, that GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 557 can be difficult to achieve because Mr Wright and Mr Mayo have a happy knack of ceasing to be directors of a company over twelve months before it is wound up. I am told other people also are able to get around this problem of being forbidden to manage a company after being involved with a company that is wound up. For instance, people like Dr McGoldrick who have been struck off can still be seen around the town managing building enterprises despite having been struck off. It seems that the best weapon against these kinds of people is publicity.

What is happening with Lazaway Pools Pty Ltd through the activities of Mr Wright and Mr Mayo, aided and abetted by the Westpac Banking Corporation, is part of the corporate sickness that was evident in Australia in the 1980s and reflects an abuse of limited liability and company law. Examples of the sickness can be seen in what has happened not only with organisations such as the Pyramid Building Society, Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, and the State Bank of South Australia, but also with other organisations.

In the past few years the state of corporate morality in Victoria and around Australia generally has been such that it has enabled this sort of activity to go on without effective measures being taken to prevent it.

Mr JOHN (Bendigo East) - The grievance I raise today relates to the financial administration by the government of its departments and the statutory corporations under its control. The matter of particular concern to me is the reimbursement by the taxpayer of personal expenses of senior public servants.

No-one doubts or would question that the legitimate direct expenses incurred in the conduct of one's office under the Crown should be properly paid for and reimbursed by the taxpayer. However, where such expenses exceed what is legitimate and proper they represent an abuse of the system. As members of Parliament we have a duty to bring such matters before the House if information comes to our notice.

The information I am about to present to Parliament has been obtained by me through two separate requests under the Freedom of Information Act. I refer in particular to the claims for expenses incurred by Mr Philip Roy Bentley, who was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Alpine Resorts Commission on 28 June 1990. He was appointed on a five-year contract at a salary of $91 500, with the use of a car and an expenses of office allowance of $4907.

Prior to coming to the Alpine Resorts Commission, Mr Bentley was the Director-General of the Department of Labour, a position he held for approximately three years. On two occasions, that is, on the evenings of 20 November and 28 November last year, in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting, I raised in this House a number of issues relating to expenses claimed by Mr Bentley and paid for by the taxpayer. They were expenses incurred in the conduct and performance of his duties as Director-General of the Department of Labour. GRIEVANCES

558 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

The information that came into my possession later indicates that Mr Bentley appears to have exceeded his terms of office and has been continuing to do so in his new role as Chief Executive Officer of the Alpine Resorts Commission. In order to bring honourable members into the picture of what occurred late last year, I indicate that information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that over a three-year period Mr Bentley had spent and was reimbursed by the taxpayer in excess of $14000 for expenses related to more than 130 separate restaurant visits. The list of restaurants reads like a Who's Who of the finest restaurants in Melbourne and Victoria and includes restaurants such as the Florentino Restaurant, the Flower Drum Licensed Restaurant, the Rosati Restaurant, Cafe Balzac, the Society Restaurant, Sukiyaki House Restaurant, and many other fine restaurants. No question exists that Mr Bentley demonstrated impeccable taste in choosing the restaurants where he dined. No-one would question his right to enjoy fine meals or fine wines. The question is: should the taxpayer be indulging Mr Bentley's enjoyment of the good life? On 28 November 1990 I raised a number of issues in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting. The main issue related to Mr Bentley's taxi expenses in 1987-88. In one year he claimed $4400 for taxi fares alone. Honourable members should bear in mind that he probably had the use of a government car, but he claimed $4400 for taxi fares - presumably most of the time to take him to and from the restaurants he attended! Mter I raised the matter on 28 November, on 30 November Mr Bentley, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Alpine Resorts Commission, wrote to a junior officer of his own commission, seeking an independent report on the commission's financial records, to check his personal expense claims. I cannot understand how such a report could be truly independent, without casting any aspersions on the junior officer who prepared it. How could a report for the chief of the commission prepared by a junior officer be independent? On 14 December 1990, the report was duly delivered. In summary, the report lists some of the expenses claimed. For an eight-month period, out-of-pocket expenses amounted to $4599.41. For commission functions held at Mansfield, at which Mr Bentley was either the host or at least attended, the amount claimed was $1619. For a three to four-month period, the amount claimed for meals and drinks was $1421.15. This time the accounts were for eight different restaurants over three or four months. It could well have been said that Mr Bentley was at it again. Why has Mr Bentley been so well treated by the government that his expenses have not been properly audited and checked? Other items in the report include an account for $400 from the Alpine Retreat, an account from the Enzian Ski Lodge for $432, an account for $540 from Lawler Apartments at Dinner Plain, an account for $400 for two nights' accommodation at Zirky's Lodge, and an account for $308.70, including $46.80 for drinks from the Astra Lodge. The claim for the Astra Lodge expenses includes two Crown lagers, one light beer, two cognacs, three Camparis with soda, two bottles of mineral water, a bottle of Hardy's GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 559

Cabernet Sau vignon and two ports. However senior this public servant was, why should the taxpayers have had to pay for the Crown lager, the wine and the cognac he drank while he dined? I am not questioning Mr Bentley's style or taste or his freedom to eat and drink what he chooses at restaurants, but why should Victorian taxpayers have to foot the bill? This government is responsible for the supervision of public expenses. I believe Mr Bentley exceeded his terms of employment while head of the Department of Labour and I believe he is exceeding them now. Why should he play the gourmand at public expense? One wonders how many other senior public servants appointed by this government are enjoying the good life at the expense of ordinary Victorians. There are many people hurting in our economy: people are going broke as a result of the record number of bankruptcies in Victoria, and the rural community is facing its worst crisis for decades. Yet a head of a department earning $91 500 with a company car is dining in the best restaurants in the State while we foot the bill. This is a disgusting situation, which the government has permitted. The buck must stop with this government: I twice raised this matter in November last year, yet here we are in March and nothing has been done about it. You cannot claim for business lunches or business dinners in the private sector these days because Mr Hawke and Mr Keating have outlawed those sorts of claims. On the one hand there are no such tax deductible items for the private sector or the small business person, but on the other hand Labor government appointees are enjoying the high life at the expense of taxpayers without any restrictions on their freedom to spend. I wonder how many more people appointed to jobs by this government are enjoying the good life at taxpayers' expense? I also wonder why the latest annual report of the Alpine Resorts Commission is more than twelve months overdue, containing items recorded on and up to 31 October 1989. Not only is it a qualified report, but it is a damning indictment of this government's poor financial performance and incompetent management. Hidden on page 48 of this 58-page report is the Auditor-General's report dated 20 November 1990, the second paragraph of which says: The commission did not maintain an asset register to support the item fixed assets recorded in the balance sheet with a written down value of $23 million. The second last paragraph says:

. . . the commission has reported a provision for doubtful debts at $304 (XX). However, as the commission did not maintain adequate records to enable verification of this item I am not in a position to and do not express an opinion on this item. The last paragraph of the report contains a damning indictment: In my opinion, due to the significance of the matters referred to above, the financial statements do not present fairly the state of affairs of the Alpine Resorts Commission as at 31 October 1989 or the results of its operations for the year ended on that date in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards. GRIEVANCES

560 ASSEMBLY Thu~y,21~h1991

They are the words of the Auditor-General, the independent officer who in this State is responsible for the checking of the financial records and transactions of the government as well as other items referred to him by statute.

When one looks at the personal expenses of Mr Bentley that I have referred to, a man who is playing the gounnand at the taxpayers' expense, it is no wonder why the State is in its present financial mess. It is obvious that the department headed by Mr Bentley is not keeping proper records and is not carrying out proper checks and audits, which is a disgraceful state of affairs for a Victorian statutory corporation.

Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) - I raise matters concerning the Rural Water Commission, which the Minister for Conservation and Environment should examine carefully. I call on the Minister to carry out a complete overhaul of the water pricing policy applying to Victoria's rural industries as well as the anomalies in the system which in recent days have been admitted by the Minister for Agriculture, who has said that the pricing structure is inequitable and that the increases to be imposed this year are unfair. The Minister for Agriculture has a better understanding of this matter than has the Minister for Conservation and Environment.

The implications of the increased water prices to be imposed on irrigators are horrendous. In this year alone water prices will increase on average by 10.2 per cent, and under the five-year business plan which has been established by the Rural Water Commission they are set to increase by 56 per cent by 1995.

Such excessive increases would be unfair in normal times, let alone in the economic crisis that farmers in particular are going through in their efforts to supply food not only for the people of Melbourne but for all Victorians.

The new pricing structure incorporates the full current cost of head works for water systems as well as the cost of running the Rural Water Commission's head office in Melbourne. The current cost accounting method must be dropped because it is all out of killer, and the government must examine the range of costs that farmers are being forced to bear.·

I understand that the costs being borne by farmers include the commission's unfunded superannuation liability which, according to the latest figures contained in its annual report, is a massive $263.7 million, which is absolutely extraordinary. Farmers should not have to pay costs directly related to the operation of the scheme. By looking carefully at those figures you can see that the interest cos,t will be some $29 million alone, yet another cost that this government is trying to force on the rural sector.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! I suggest that the honourable member continue his remarks when the chair is resumed at 2 p.m. GRIEVANCES

Th~y,21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 561

Sitting suspended 1 p.m. until 2.3 p.Ol. Mr W ALLACE - Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the report of the Rural Water Commission, which recommended that superannuation payments be met from the Consolidated Fund. There has been no response from the government on that point. Unfortunately a precedent has been set where the Country Fire Authority has had to fund $2.5 million for superannuation out of its budget. I am worried the government will also request the Rural Water Commission to find the funds from its budget. Yesterday the Minister for Conservation and Environment announced that the Auditor-General will examine the appropriateness of current cost depreciation as the basis of providing for the replacement of existing rural water systems and proposed salinity mitigation assets. He said accountants would be appointed to report on measures aimed at providing a better flow of information about the commission's activities to water users and ensuring that each sector of the water supply system is treated equitably. I express concern about a number of issues. Last Friday at Maffra the commission held an auction of water where some 6000 megalitres of Thomson River dam water was sold to local farmers. I believe that is wrong. When the Thomson dam was originally constructed it was intended that half of the water from the dam would be made available to the Melbourne metropolitan area and the other half would be made available to irrigators and industries in Gippsland. Three or four years ago the former Treasurer, Rob Jolly, was responsible for transferring 78 000 megalitres of that water to Melbourne. Despite all the reports on the Thomson dam saying that half of the water would be used in Gippsland, the government transferred a significant proportion of it to the Melbourne metropolitan area. I am sure all honourable members want our water to be used appropriately so that it benefits the whole State. However, this water has been locked up in the Melbourne metropolitan system for some time and has not been required. At the same time the lack of water has made it extremely difficult for Gippsland farmers. Although the commission said the water available for auction was surplus water it was really part of the 78 000 megalitres taken from the Thomson dam several years ago. All the government is doing is selling back 6000 megalitres of water to the Gippsland irrigators. Over the next few years I should not be surprised if more of that water were to be made available; after five years probably all of the 78 000 megalitres of water taken away will be sold back to the Gippsland farming community. Last Friday 12 of the 6000 megalitres were sold at $390 a megalitre. It is impossible for agricultural industries to buy water at that price. I presume the water will be used for vegetable growing and related activities. Another 320 megalitres of water was sold at $200 a megalitre and the remainder was sold at between $150 and $170 a megalitre. Insufficient water was allocated to meet the demand from farmers in the 77597/91-19 GRIEVANCES

562 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Thomson-Macalister irrigation district. Many farmers were not able to purchase that water because of the financial difficulties they are facing at present. In two or three years these farmers will be deprived of water because they were not able to purchase it now. In a dry season farms will be out of water by January or just after the peak dairying period. and the income losses will be enormous. The average purchases at the auction last week amounted to 50 to 60 megalitres a farm, which is nowhere near enough for farmers or irrigators. These are very sad and difficult times. The implications for the irrigators over the five-year period are that water charges will increase by $10 million, to $78 million in 1990 dollar terms. Taking into account the anticipated inflation levels, water charges will have increased by 56 per cent by 1995. As an example, the cost of a megalitre of water in the Macalister irrigation district in Gippsland will have increased from $20 to $31 a day by the end of the five-year period. That is fair enough, but the important point is that we need to ensure that the prices for agricultural products also increase. Unfortunately this is being made very difficult because of the Federal government's allowance of imported products into Australia. I make it clear that I am positive the farming community in Victoria can produce the best in the world at the cheapest prices, but we are having to compete with other countries that receive subsidies, particularly in the dtrus fruit and similar industries, and that makes it very difficult to compete. There is a need for the Minister to spell out clearly just where the State is heading in this regard because Victoria's future is still in the hands of the agricultural areas of this State, and the more pressure we apply to those areas the harder it is for the State to recover. I hope the government will realise this fact and step out and do something about it in the near future. In the remaining few minutes available to me I should like to raise a couple of other items, the first of which I have mentioned to the Minister for Transport, who has taken on the job of personally pulling out the file from the Ministry and examining the matter. I refer to the sad situation of a young couple who bought into a business at Leongatha some twelve months ago. They put their whole life savings into the business, which is on V /Line land. It is tragic that these people, who have built up their business quite considerably in the very short time they have been operating - and they are employing three extra people who also have families -- may be forced out of business because of bureaucratic red tape, misunderstanding and no sympathy. The business is on V/Line land. They believed when they bought into the business that they would have the first option to purchase the land at a price based on the Valuer-General's valuation. This couple is now in a situation where the property may be sold from under them. It was to be sold before Christmas, but they managed to get a stay of execution, as it were. After some strong representations the matter has still not been resolved with the bureaucrats. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 563

I call on the Minister for Transport to examine the matter very carefully because it could set a precedent not only in that area but throughout Victoria. This young couple has three children and they are trying their hardest to make a living for themselves, develop the area and do good for the community. They have been very much involved in the community, and it is sad to think they may be forced out of business. All they are asking is for the land to be valued by the Valuer-General, and that they have the first option to purchase it. They are prepar~ to seriously consider buying the land based on that valuation.

I am sure the Minister will be able to consider the matter in the next few days and ensure that this young couple is not placed in further hardship. They have had a torrid time over the past few months, and this sort of uncertainty puts an enormous amount of pressure on their business and family. I can assure the Minister that unless something is done the Leongatha community will stand behind this couple. I would go even as far as saying that the auctioneers may be very embarrassed on the day of the auction because not many people will turn up; the community believes this couple have a right to have the land valued by the Valuer-General and to purchase the property.

This is a very sad story. A young couple that is prepared to stand up and have a go under the current difficult circumstances is being badly treated by the Ministry, which, I am afraid and sorry to say, just does not understand the circumstances and is interested only in going by the book. There is a need for commonsense in these sorts of matters and we must make sure that these people are given a chance. Mr SEITZ (Keilor) -- The matter I raise in this grievance debate relates to the Victoria University of Technology and the apparent threat to its existence and viability by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology's reprehensible actions which have created anxiety in the western suburbs. As a useful member of the western suburbs I was involved in making submissions to previous governments when they called for input regarding the Deakin University. Of course; we were unsuccessful at that time and did not get a university campus in the western suburbs. We made further submission during the term of the Whitlam Labor government for the establishment of a university in the western suburbs to be located in the Sunshine area, where the railway lines from Geelong, Bendigo, Sydney and other areas merge; that would have meant that a considerable part of Victoria would have had access to education at that campus. Of course, the term of the Whitlam government was too short-lived for it to be able to implement and proceed with that proposal. When the Hawke government came to office other representatives and I again took up the cudgels in an attempt to get a university in the west. Our first step was to have'an institute established in the area. GRIEVANCES

564 ASSEMBLY Th~y,21~h1991

Ha ving been involved in the planning, development and setting of the criteria for the type of education to be provided and the method of delivery of that education for the benefit of the community of the western suburbs, I know the establishment of the Western Institute was nothing short of a miracle. I mention particularly the speed with which it was established and the willingness and cooperation of the Federal and State Ministers and various departments involved. The establishment of that institute created the possibility of upgrading its status to that of a university to fit in with the Federal government's plans of establishing a university. One point that the RMIT and its council can be certain of is that the people in the western suburbs are at one on this issue: they will have a university in the west. RMIT must feel incompetent and demoralised if it needs special legislation to ensure it is the leader in that western university. If RMIT's reputation, capability and academic standards are so great, why does it need legislation to ensure it is the leader? If it is capable it should emerge naturally as the leader and should not have to seek legislation to protect its status. They are yesterday'S people who have forgotten who we are in the 1990s. The people of the western suburbs will fight and will not throw in the towel in their fight to achieve their aim of having a university. They have been deprived of that opportunity in the past by conservative governments. If RMIT council were asked to provide a university in the eastern suburbs, would these people perform as they are performing at present? They are holding to ransom a community with a population as large as that of Tasmania; they are using emotional blackmail on students at Footscray Institute of Technology (FIT) and the Western Institute, on families and all who are involved from the area. It is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the RMIT council and its representatives. In years past I was a student at RMIT and its origins were as the Workingman's College. The representatives of the council have forgotten the origins of the college and the service it was supposed to provide. They are interested only in academic snobbery at the taxpayers' expense. It is time somebody stood up and told them where to get off. If they do not want to be part of a new university to service the western suburbs it means they are scared they cannot provide the leadership and will not emerge as the leaders of that triumvirate of councils. If an organisation is competent and capable of producing leaders, natural leaders will come up under any circumstances and there is no need for legislation to protect people as natural leaders. We see in political parties that natural leaders with ability rise above the rest. The president of the RMIT student representative council is not happy with the RMIT council's decision. The opinions of the leaders of tomorrow are not being sought by yesterday'S men from the RMITcouncil because the student body at RMITwants to continue its association with the Western Institute. I will now refer to some headlines in western suburbs newspapers. The front page of the Mail of 13 March 1991 bears the headline '''Ridiculous': students slam RMIT". That article GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 565

condemns the games being played by the RMIT council. A headline on the front of the 6 March edition reads "Uni ready to go it alone". The Community News of 26 February 1991 carries the headline "University threat". I think people have misjudged the feeling of the community in the western suburbs: they will fight for the continuing development and existence of the university. Page 4 of the 27 February edition of the Sunshine local newspaper the Advocate carries the headline "Uni plan will go ahead: MP". Again the local Federal members -- Alan Griffiths and Neil O'Keefe -- come to the aid of the university. The Werribee Banner of 6 February contains an article explaining the chances for educational excellence that are available in the western suburbs, which have developed since Labor, in government in Victoria and federally, has channelled resources into those areas.

When I started with the Western Institute there was a fight over the Sunshine hospital issue with snobby academics saying, "We can't go and live out there; we can't attract the right staff to do the job." That sort of thing has to stop in our modem society. If the conservatives pander to those types of people they will never be the government of Victoria; they can forget any dreams they have of being returned to the government benches on those sorts of policies.

It is unheard of that anyone could support the thought of a dual system and different classes in society, where an area with a population as large as that of Tasmania has been deprived as a result of the failure of previous conservative governments to develop and promote the region.

I have stood in this House time and again and said that my community of Keilor, a balanced community with people from all walks of life and economic backgrounds, will not again tolerate a sell-out; nor will they tolerate the support given by the conservatives on the opposition benches to the RMIT to block the development of the university proposed to be established in the western region to provide for our community's education needs.

Parents whose children go to universities on the other side of the city have either the expense of a flat for their children or the children have to obtain a car and leave home at 5 o'clock in the morning to get to their first lecture. People have woken up to what it means to have educational facilities in the area where they live and will not go back to the pre-1980 situation that existed under the conservative government where educational institutions were developed only in the eastern suburbs or in the inner Melbourne area.

I hope that the RMIT council at its meeting tonight will reconsider its ultimatum to pull out of the university program with FIT and the Western Institute if its wishes are not met and RMIT's hierarchical situation and power are not enshrined in legislation. The people of the western suburbs will not give in to that situation and neither will AT or the Western Institute. As a former student and lecturer at FIT I know the feeling of the community and its aspirations have not changed. GRIEVANCES

566 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

I recall in the early days of the establishment of the FIT, when I worked closely with the late Doug Mills in the development of the institute from the Footscray College of Technology, the opinions then expressed in the media and by the conservative government that you could never get the right quality and standards at an institute in the western suburbs. We all know the excellent reputation FIT has in Australia and around the world. Its engineering courses in particular have more students than they can cope with and provide places for overseas as well as local students. Honourable members should take serious note that I for one will not throw in the towel in the fight to have a university in the western suburbs. I know our Federal colleagues from the western region support it, and that is where the funds come from. The Minister for Education and Training supports the development of the university. If the RMIT thinks it can get away with running a bluff by saying that the whole university has to be in the Melbourne city area -- at the Queen Victoria Hospital site -­ and that there will not be campuses at Werribee, Melton, St Albans, Sydenham and Footscray, it will find that is not acceptable; that will not be tolerated and funds will not be forthcoming for that sort of a proposal. I advise opposition members who are tempted to support RMIT councillors that they should think again and look at what they are doing to a large community that has developed for the past 27 years virtually without government assistance. When Labor was voted into power, positive decisions were made, funds were made available and the west was recognised. We developed the educational facilities in the north-west: the Broadmeadows College of TAFE is full at present and needs to be expanded to accommodate more students. The Western Institute and the Footscray Institute of Technology (FIT) have developed enormously over recent years with permanent buildings being constructed in place of portables. The State government has provided finance for more student places, demonstrating its determination to assist people in the western suburbs, with its increasing population and the need for greater services, particularly a university that is freely available and affordable for future generations. The development of the Western Institute and the Broadmeadows College of TAFE has meant that more courses and student places are available in the western suburbs and many more mature students now have the opportunity of gaining an education. In many cases they must first obtain their Victorian certificate of education before they can obtain tertiary qualifications. Many mature students require resources such as child-care facilities and the Western Institute has provided a child-care facility on campus which is encouraging women, many of whom have been housebound with young children, to take the opportunity of developing their skills and careers. Those women now have the opportunity of making a greater input to society by moving back into the work force, and a better chance of achieving their aims in life by obtaining a job they want to do GRIEVANCES

Th~y.21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 567 rather than the job they were forced to do because of discrimination or because they were not qualified to do other jobs.lf people have to travel to the city, Monash University or La Trobe University they are faced with transport costs of approximately $60 a week, which is not affordable for most people in the western suburbs. It becomes even more difficult for women with young children who require child-care facilities because the extra travel time to tertiary institutions increases the cost of child-care. The Western Institute campus at St Albans has developed programs so that women who require child-care for up to 3 hours can afford the $2 or $3 for child-care. Many women do not control the purse strings of their households and they are the persons who are least able to obtain an education. Those women now have the opportunity of obtaining qualifications and better jobs rather than being exploited by being the local cleaner or by washing dishes in a bar.

A university in the western suburbs will inspire more people to gain further qualifications; it will encourage more vocational training and further research. It will help immigrants and other people who have been forced to move from the western suburbs just to further their careers. A university in the western suburbs will create job opportunities and encourage industry to develop there.

For all those reasons I again urge the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology council seriously and carefully to consider at its meeting tonight the proposal to withdraw from the proposed Victoria University of Technology. I urge the Minister for Education not to be browbeaten by the RMIT council into giving it greater responsibility, but to urge upon it to take a more responsible attitude to the community, particularly those people in the western suburbs.

If the academics and leaders at the RMIT are so good then they should not be fearful of losing the leadership role to the administrators of the Western Institute or FIT. I am not fearful of being overshadowed by anyone because if I know that I am good in a certain field then I shine as a leader in that field and the same should apply to RMIT, which is using the coward's way out. Normally the best football team will always win and come out on top. The same should apply to the RMIT. The public and the media should expose the RMIT for what it is trying to do to the people of the western suburbs. It is not acceptable. I shall continue the fight to have a university in the western suburbs and I will not throw in the towel until that occurs.

Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) - I grieve today about the impact this government's appalling economic mismanagement is having on the provision of services in my electorate, particularly primary schools and police stations.

At the outset I mention the Rainbow police station, a one-man station in the southern part of my electorate. I raised this issue with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Victoria Police after I inspected that police station in September last year, but there has been total inaction so the only course open to me is to raise the matter in this forum. GRIEVANCES

568 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Civil libertarians would have a field day with the condition of the police station if the circumstances became known publicly. I refer not just to the health and safety aspects of the premises, but also to how offenders are confined. The cell at the Rainbow police station can only be described as a black hole, yet it is regularly used by up to four or five people at any given time. It is an old wooden cell, which has white ants and dry rot, which have taken their toll on the building. It has no light, no seat, no bunk and no toilet. All it has is a garbage bin which the inmates can use either as a seat or a toilet. If they use it as a toilet the police officer has to clean it out at a later stage. The cell is pitch black inside when the door is closed and those cell conditions alone leave Victoria Police open to criticism from a number of quarters, most particularly the civil libertarians and human rights campaigners. The government may say that Rainbow is just a small town and is therefore not as important as the larger provincial centres. However, many smaller country centres receive their fair share of crooks. Some major criminal offences have occurred in areas such as Birchip and Lascelles. The local police officer has informed me that he has had more than twenty offenders lodged in this black hole of a cell over the past two years. That is possibly more than any other one-man police station in Victoria has held. Some of the offenders have had prior convictions, and not just for drunkenness. They may have been to court previously for armed robbery, serious assault or firearm offences. It is not just a small country town problem. Those conditions leave a lot to be desired and it becomes a safety and security problem for the officer when dealing with offenders. The interior of the cell does not have a light and it is dark inside. When the door of the cell is opened the occupant of the cell can see the police officer in the doorway but the police officer cannot see the occupant in the darkness. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your experience in your previous profession you would be aware of the layout of police stations. The tin can in the cell could be used as a weapon. The offender could lunge forward with it and strike the police officer as he opened the door and there would be very little the police officer could do about it. The officer runs the potential risk of being threatened by a violent offender who may choose to lurch out of the cell. The next item is the facilities for the police officer. The only toilet is a portable unit which has no path from the office. It has no hot water connected to the wash basin and the floor is lifting. The police station is also substandard. It is a small room, 3 metres by 8 metres, and that presents enormous difficulties for the officer performing his duties on a daily basis. Moving about in such a small area if there is more than one person in the room is an effort. The officer has insufficient room to conduct interviews and certainly has no privacy. This overcrowded situation could be dangerous if the officer was behind a desk and a person being interviewed became violent. He could pull down the filing cabinet in an attempt to obtain the member's weapon because there is no safe storage or lockup for weapons in the room. The station has no water connected so the officer is unable to even make tea or coffee or wash his hands after dealing with an offender who might be bleeding or is dirty. A GRIEVANCES

Thursday. 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 569 perusal of this watch-house and the facilities paint a poor picture of police professionalism and the work and safety standards that should be expected of an efficient department. I direct attention to a report on the station prepared by the occupational health and safety representative with the Victoria Police based at Horsham, Senior Constable Reid. He states that this situation contravenes a number of health and safety areas. In his report he says the health risk is created as the nearest facilities for washing are in the outside toilet at the rear of the station; that there is no hot water; that the door of the rear of the station is difficult to lock and unlock - it requires a lever under the door to be able to lock it - and there are no ready facilities available if there is a chemical spillage at a time of a breath test and the officer in charge wishes to wash his hands. At the entrance to the toilet block an iron bar sticks out from the building in the middle of the doorway and the step from the ground to the toilet block is about 35 centimetres so the height of the step with the bar sticking out creates a potential risk to people entering or leaving the toilet block. The lino on the floor is wavy and in due course will break up and cause problems if people trip and injure themselves. As I said, there is no path from the station to the toilet block. Senior Constable Reid also refers to the size of the station creating a safety risk. He says the premises are big enough to take only one desk and a couple of chairs for visitors and it becomes very crowded. At times the Rainbow police station attracts a number of other officers if members of the Criminal Investigation Branch are in the area investing major crime, if the Traffic Operations Group comes for some reason or if there is a special event such as New Year's Eve when additional police come into the area. It then becomes crowded and the safety risk increases. He recommended that because the premises are outdated they should be replaced immediately. That report is in similar vein to a report presented by the officer stationed at Rainbow to the regional office. He believes the town is getting more and more "bad eggs" because of the cheap rent for housing that makes it attractive for people to cOllle to these smaller centres. The figures of the increasing arrests I mentioned earlier point to the fact that the office really needs either some major renovation undertaken or a new police station. He believes for a long time he has been the poor relation receiving hand-me-downs from other stations and short-term patch-up jobs.

I am somewhat disturbed at the response I received from the Capital Works and Properties Division of the Victoria Police. The Minister was not prepared to do me the courtesy of responding on this issue; he passed it across to this division. The chief inspector of the division, Mr R.G. Rogers, said:

Now that the local police member has brought the cell facilities to our attention, these conditions will be investigated and appropriate repairs carried out when funds are available. That letter was dated 19 October and to this date nothing has been done. I am disturbed by his comments at the end of his letter: GRIEVANCES

570 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

I note with interest your concern for the conditions under which our members are required to work, and no doubt it will continue when you are in a position to influence the amount of funding to our capital works program. It is accepted that your immediate concern lies with your electorate, but I hope you realise that our role is to spread limited funds throughout the State. The giving of what I consider false hope to particular members does not assist in this regard. The chief inspector is saying that because I, as the local member, went to the Rainbow police station, inspected these appalling facilities and properly brought them to the attention of the Minister and the Ministry, was supposedly giving the officer false hope. I do not think Chief Inspector Rogers understands the role of a local member representing his constituents when he makes those comments. The other issue I wish to raise briefly in the time allotted is the clever way the government has been reducing funding to primary schools of late. Block grants were introduced some time ago and I support the philosophy of block grant funding because it allows local school councils, the people who are involved on a day-to-day basis with the running of those schools, to direct the funds in the areas of most need. However, a number of school councils that organised a deputation with me in my office only last week said that built into these grants are other allowances that were previously separate. When you break down the figures you see that the contribution of the government is steadily declining. I should like to mention a number of examples. The first is the Mildura West Primary School which has a population of 600 pupils. Excluding the salary component, government funding for that school amounts to 56 cents per pupil per day. That has to cover everything - power, grounds maintenance, building maintenance and pupil requisites such as library books and footballs - and has to be topped up with local funds. The government contribution, excluding salaries, amounts to less than 50 per cent of the actual expenditure of the school. One of the things that most disturbs me is the shortfall for utility costs. The Mildura West Primary School has just had a shortfall of $3000 on electricity charges. The government sets aside a certain amount of money for power costs and the school has overrun that amount by $3000. It is not as if the school has not been taking measures to ensure costs are kept to a minimum. They only use their air-conditioners and heaters when absolutely necessary. They have cut back on security lighting. Teachers are instructed to go around and ensure the lights have been turned off when the children leave the classrooms. Some schools are disconnecting their hot water services. It worries me that the government of the day is requiring school communities to raise funds at a local level to pay the costs of electricity in those schools. The Irymple Primary School annually receives $280 from the government as part of that block grant to do an audit, which is a requirement of the school. The actual audit costs $500, so the school is obliged to raise funds to cover the cost of something that is a requirement. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 571

The funds the school receives for electricity fell $1500 short in 1989 and $1200 short in 1990. That means the school community started this year with a budget debit and is expected to conduct chook raffles and so on to try to raise the funds at a local level. I am told the regional office is going to review this problem but this review does not allow the schools to recoup the funds it has lost in previous years. The regional officers' hands are tied. Those schools are· being disadvantaged in the way the block grant funding formulas are applying at the moment. Another matter which has been brought to my attention is the government's total contribution. In 1988 the Irymple Primary School raised $100 000 towards its expenditure. The government's contribution was $34 000. The government's input into the school community has been reducing over time. This year the Mildura West Primary School will receive $4300 from the Ministry for things such as library books, computers and production of policies, documents and mathematics equipment. The school will actually spend $55 000. That is a huge burden school communities are expected to take on. When she was the Minister for Education the Premier ordered a committee to be established to examine the block grant funding system. To my knowledge the report of that committee has never been released. I would like to know whether or not the Minister would be prepared to release it so we can see what the committee had to say, what its recommendations were and whether the government is taking any action on these important matters. Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - It will come as no surprise to the House that the matter I wish to raise concerns the Latrobe Valley and, more importantly, a number of impacts that have occurred there over the past eighteen months or so. It concerns the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and the impact the changes and some of the practices of management is having on the community I represent. I should like to talk about those changes in terms of what I would call the intrinsic or measurable changes, which are there for everyone to see. In respect of the long term I should like to talk about the immeasurable changes that have occurred. I do not intend to mount an argument about privatisation in this place at this time. I will take that debate at another time and in another forum. The matter I raise suggests that the management of the State Electricity Commission (SEC) gives every indication of being out of control. That is of concern to the government, and I suggest it would be of concern to any government regardless of its policies. The SEC is an important statutory authority which, under the Act, is a statutory authority bound by the government and subject to the direction of the Minister. Section 9D(2) of the State Electricity Commission Act states:

Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act the Minister may at any time give a direction to the Commission concerning the policies it is to give effect to. GRIEVANCES

572 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

Section 12(2) of the Act states: In carrying out its responsibilities the Commission shall as far as is practicable operate as a public utility and shall also achieve the following objectives ... Two of those objectives are most relevant to the unfortunate implications taking place at this time. Paragraph (a) states that the commission shall carry out an: Operation in accordance with criteria, established from time to time by the Minister, with respect to efficiency, economy, safety and reliability. Paragraph states that the commission shall carry out an: Operation in accordance with economic and social objectives established from time to time by the Government of Victoria. Clearly those objectives would be different if there were different governments in power at different times and, no doubt, those objectives may change over time. The Act clearly puts the SEC as a public authority. It is a statutory authority under the direction of the Minister and subject to the policies of the government of the day. The current practices clearly demonstrate that the SEC is not acting in accordance with government policy. The commission is being extremely provocative by continuing to issue memorandums, to which I shall refer shortly. It has indulged in practices that have been condemned by the Industrial Relations Commission and it is endeavouring to destroy the confidence of its work force. For many years the SEC has had an extremely loyal work force. For the 23 years I have lived in the Latrobe Valley, until recently, the managers down to the people working with shovels in the briquette factories were proud to be part of the commission; they were proud of the organisation and of what they were doing. However, that pride has now been destroyed by the deliberate practice of bad management. I shall put the matter in its correct historical context. Some eighteen months ago the management of the SEC released a structural efficiency plan setting out a number of targets to make the commission more efficient. The commission wanted to increase productivity, which in real terms translates into reducing the size of the work force. There is no argument with increasing productivity; it is an important indicator in terms of getting the economy going. The plan contained steps ou tlining what would be a 7 per cent reduction in the work force each year for three years - a total effective reduction of 19 per cent. Those goals were acceptable to the major players. Because they originated from management; obviously they were acceptable to management, but the unions also said they were prepared to work to achieve the productivity gains. Even more importantly, the goals were acceptable to the community. Being dominated as it is by the SEC as the major employer, the community knew it would have to make adjustments so the local economy and social fabric could cope with a decrease in the number of permanent, ongoing jobs. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 573

Two things have happened since the plan was announced: firstly, Victoria has entered a severe recession and, as my colleagues from the National Party know, its effects are being felt in the provincial and rural parts of Victoria; secondly, at the same time as the economic recession was affecting every person in Australia the SEC decided to decrease its work force by 20 per cent in only twelve months. No community can stand such a sudden change. Workers were given voluntary redundancy packages, but the wages were no longer circulating in the community. People who had purchased cars, fridges, furniture and so on under time payment arrangements based on the fact they had secure employment were now faced with a totally different prospect. Fewer jobs are now available in the local community, and that has had a major impact not only on the work force but also on small business within the community. The second and most disastrous thing that happened was the destruction of the morale of the work force. Because the commission is such an integral part of the community, the morale and disenchantment in its work force has spread like a cancer throughout the community. A depressed feeling pervades the Latrobe Valley and that is sad because it has been brought about by a deliberate set of practices that would do credit to Margaret Thatcher, Machiavelli or Mussolini. The decrease in the commission's work force has been achieved by what is known as the hostage strategy. The SEC targeted certain areas of its work force and offered large sums of money - $100 000 -- as redundancy packages. The commission did not consult with the unions about who would take over the functions performed by retiring employees. Morale problems occur if one of two people working in the same office is offered a large redundancy package and the other is not. The problem is further exacerbated when the employee remaining at work does not receive a large increase in salary and is expected to do someone else's job. When the workers began to complain about such practices, the blame was put at the feet of the trade union movement, which has been blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the Latrobe Valley. Unfortunately, that has caused the reputation of the valley to be not as good as it should be. The trade union movement should be commended because it has handled an intensely difficult industrial situation with sensitivity and determination. No major strikes have occurred. The thirteen-week strike in 1977 which affected the entire community is well remembered. All people of the Latrobe Valley, including Labor and Liberal party leaders, supported the workers who went on strike for more than thirteen weeks. Their families were supported by local businesses and the community pulled together. An important factor in what is happening is the determination of the local trade union movement, as distinct from their bosses in Melbourne, to tackle the problems. As I said before, the union movement has done extremely well. During the past eighteen months there has not been a blackout let alone a brownout, and that is due to the restraint shown by unions under extremely provocative conditions. GRIEVANCES

574 ASSEMBLY Th~y.21~hl991

Everyone knows that one way to destroy the morale of a work force is to tell a group of employees that they cannot do a certain job and then sit those employees in a room and not give them anything to do. At the same time outside contractors - and this has always been a fairly sensitive issue in the Latrobe Valley -- are brought in to carry out particular maintenance or construction work. When a group of people are deliberately given nothing to do it can only cause disharmony, disquiet and dissatisfaction. Everybody gets blamed for it. It is not unknown for the government to be blamed for a number of things that are going on because of these deliberate practices by the State Electricity Commission management. The latest episode of what I call unacceptable management relates to Loy Yang. There has been a lot of publicity about the future of the Loy Yang power station. Dr Napthine - They should privatise it! Mr HAMILTON -- Maybe they should. I am not getting into the privatisation debate at this stage, but I do resent what management has done there. It has gone to the construction work force - usually there are between 1300 and 1500 people on the site, but the number can vary from up to 3000 to down to 500, depending on the work that is being carried out -- and said, "If you don't support privatisation this station will never be built. It will be dosed down and you will be out of your jobs." That sort of blackmail- I prefer to call it Smithmail - is not even decent, let alone politically acceptable. It is unacceptable. The statutory authority should keep its nose out of politics. These sorts of practices are a little hard to understand. The SEC continues to issue memos. The latest one I have is dated 15 March 1991. There is a ditch in front of my office and every time a truck goes over it the papers fall off the back of the truck and end up in my office. I should not be surprised next week to find a notice from the SEC to government Ministers trying to blackmail them. Some of the things that appear in the SEC memo of 15 March 1991 are unbelievable: ... proceeding with the sale of Loy Yang B once government approval has been obtained. It would play a major role in improving the SEC's financial position ... Then in its usual contradictory style the same organisation under the same chief general manager, Mr Bates, makes a submission to the Industry Commission, the Federal body examining the way the industry is conducted: But the SEC submission said the Industry Commission proposed timetable for privatisation was both impracticable and economically dangerous. That is the same commission that is trying to privatise Loy Yang. The report of the submission continues: H there were moves to start selling these assets within the next two years, as the commission had proposed, then a "significant amount of foreign ownership" would be involved. So the commission intends to sell it off to the foreign owners. In its argument against privatisation it said: And that would be a cause for community concern and industrial disputes could be expected ... GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 575

Of course disputes can be expected if it starts selling off the State's assets. Mr Maclellan - Will the honourable member table the documents from which he is quoting? Mr HAMILTON -- Yes. The SEC has known the predicted financial costs associated with the Loy Yang power station since at least 1 August 1984. In a document about the Portland aluminium smelter - the Loy Yang power station is a very important component of the aluminium industry - the commission set out its forward estimates for capital up to 1995-96. Those estimates were arrived at in 1984. The current financial position of the SEC was certainly known and estimated at least six or seven years ago; it is nothing new. The thing that is new is its sudden proposal to start altering the way it organises its business. Last year, as a publicly owned asset, it produced record profits for the community. It plays a very important part in the productivity of this State and helps to determine economic direction by providing the cheapest industrial commercial prices, not only in Australia but in the Western World. That is something that --

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEIDEMAN (Frankston South) - The community of Frankston this year will celebrate its 25th anniversary as a city. That is a milestone that it is very proud to have reached. In recent months and years the community has been somewhat cast down by the total lack of concern shown by the government on the issue of law and order. Frankston is a fine city. Its population has grown from about 20 000 in 1960 to more than 100 000 in 1990. As was highlighted in the media this week a security officer with a military revolver caused a serious incident in Paisley Drive, Karingal. He had been coming to my office for some time with a WorkCare problem. Yesterday some of my colleagues celebrated fifteen years of being in this House. If my service had been continuous, I, too, would have been celebrating that achievement but my service is approximately twelve years. In most of that time I cannot recall somebody wanting to come into my electorate office and destroy property and cause bodily harm to me or my staff, but in the past two to three years that has become a common occurrence, so much so that my office now has a direct line to the local police station on which we can call for assistance. The young security officer had to be restrained by the police. That is just one example of the sorts of incidents that are occurring in my community. It could have been someone with a psychiatric problem -- and in these economic times one can understand that. This type of incident is not uncommon in the City of Frankston. In recent months my office has been damaged and people have sought to harm the people who serve in that office. There are many problems in the community and there have been a large number of rapes and murders in recent years. All honourable members would remember the disappearance of Sarah McDiarmid from the Kananook railway station. The GRIEVANCES

576 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Neighbourhood Watch organisation is concerned about that station, which is at the boundary of the aty of Frankston. A local paper this week reported that a 68-year-old pensioner who for 35 years had been travelling on the Frankston line was attacked between the railway station and the car park, robbed of his wallet and left until somebody found him. Purse snatching is another problem in the station area. Approximately 8000 people a day use the Frankston railway station. There has been a spate of young hoodlums going around demanding the caps, glasses and Reebok-type shoes of young people. I notice from media reports that that is also happening in other areas. One of the incidents written about in the paper last week concerned a 70-year old pensioner who was stabbed at the Frankston railway station on Friday, 1 March. The offender has been held in custody pending a pre-sentence report. Last week our local press was full of these types of incidents. I have spoken with the local chamber of commerce, the local council, the police and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services on this issue. It would appear that one of the major problems in the Frankston area is that the major hotels are situated on three corners of the Nepean Highway, and they obviously attract many people from within Frankston and outside of Frankston, all congregating in the one area. It creates pro~lems for the police when these types of nightclubs or late licence places empty people out onto the streets in the early hours of the morning, and as honourable members would know there was a murder recently when some young thugs tackled a young man walking from a nightclub back to the station. The local TAFE college is also situated very close to the station and young people going either to the station or into the city of Frankston take it upon themselves to utterly destroy the property within that TAFE college on the way home from these venues. I suggested to the local chamber of commerce that I am prepared to give up my nightly security service and offer the security person usually working for me to the aty of Frankston, to be stationed in the central business district of our city so that that person could actually report back quickly to police any unusual behaviour. Last week there. was an article in the press concerning the Peninsula Reclaim The Night Collective - a group of women who normally would probably not see me in a favourable light. They held a march last Friday about the fact that a growing number of women are being attacked in any number of public places such as railway stations, car parks, nightclubs, and lavatories, and they said that this is testament to the dangers which are now abroad in our community. The collective believes women's safety is at crisis point. I would have to agree with that. Approximately 200 women marched last Friday and I support them wholeheartedly in what they are aiming for. It would no longer be advisable for any person to drop his or her children off at the Frankston railway station and let them go into the city without them being looked after or collected at the other GRIEVANCES

Th~y,21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 577

end or without them being in the company of reasonable looking people because many people have been mugged on trains and their property has been taken away from them. Last week the local paper wrote about the introduction of a needle exchange outlet in the area. The City of Frankston is based on a beach environment, and one has only to leave hotel areas and go down to our beaches to see the influence of the drug addicts in that area. Over Christmas I was involved in a "waiters race" put on by a group of people to raise money for the Family Collective. The locallifesaving club asked if I would examine the sheds in which people changed to go swimming. We went behind one particular structure and within about a square metre there were more than 50 syringes on the ground.

Presumably people sat in the security of the boating shed, which was a brick structure, and threw the syringes into the land behind the sheds. I raise this matter in the House so that a particular receptacle can be provided for the needles.

Under the needle exchange program last year 145 pharmacists in Victoria were giving out half a million syringes. Certain needle exchange groups such as community and health centres and hospitals are giving out another half a million syringes, so we have floating around our community approximately 1 million syringes.

I hope the march last Friday has the effect of letting people know about the need for something to be done. I agree with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services that a special squad needs to be made available in Frankston as an area of special need. The Community Policing Squad was started in Frankston some years ago as a pilot squad and it was effective in breaking down the barrier between police and the citizens of Frankston. I now ask that a special group of men and women be set aside to work within our community to have some sort of impact on what I have just been talking about.

A moment ago I spoke about TAPE colleges and the damage being done by young people travelling through its environs on the way out of Frankston. Prior to the 1988 election the then Minister for Education, Mr lan Cathie, announced that land was to be made available for the TAPE college to extend its vegetable growing area and apprentice scheme out into Ballarto Road on the way to Dandenong, past the suburb of Seaford.

The plan was highly acclaimed by the local press and by the then candidates opposing me at the time as being suitable and needed. On many occasions since that time we have asked the Minister to make available that land to us but it has not been made available and subsequently we have been told that there is no way he could keep that promise.

It was a very clear promise, in the words put out in the press release, that there would be no cost to the college but we are now expecting, if the land is made available, to have to pay a great amount of money.

Mr J. F. McGrath -- The financial situation is a little different! GRIEVANCES

578 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Mr WEIDEMAN - Yes, I believe it is a little different. The time has come in Frankston for some action on the law and order issue. In 1983 and again in 1988 the Liberal Party raised as part of its election platform the issue of police stations in the Frankston area. I understand now, through a funny sort of financing deal, we are to have this wonderful new funny money deal. A new complex will be leased to someone and leased back from someone but we are not sure to whom and from whom, and it will be in the big parcel of police stations and court complexes rather than in the City of Frankston. The local member in the area - me - was never asked about it or invited to join the special committee making the decisions, and I am a little concerned that there is a bit of funny money involved. Mr Maclellan - The Mafia is putting the money up! Mr WEIDEMAN - It is a lease-back situation and I understand from other members of Parliament that it will go ahead. The poor condition of police stations in the area as reported in the 1970s still exists in the 1990s and I wonder how long it will take to have the new station and the cells and so on built so that some sort of "enthusiasm" can be injected into local law and order by the people who have to do the job. They have enormous pressures placed on them. One example of that pressure is a disturbance that occurred in my office recently when a person entered demanding money from us, which he claimed the government owed him. We then rang the police and two young policemen came down to the office. The policemen talked to that young gentleman outside my office. He had come from the City of Momington. They listened to him and he went away with them but in 30 minutes he was back. We rang the police and asked why they had let him go. They said he claimed I owed him money and they thought they had no reason to keep him; they let him go. As you can imagine, he came back very determined to get the money that he said the government owed him. I was the government representative and therefore I was supposed to pay him the money. I confronted him and some of my equipment was destroyed. I should say that I did not destroy any of his equipment but he certainly was ejected promptly from my office. The issue is serious. Children of my neighbours and friends go to functions in Frankston and often are brutalised by young thugs - I think the younger generation call them hoons. I had experience of lawlessness when my young son, while carrying a parcel, was hit from behind and had his jaw broken. His attackers had demanded that his property be handed over to them. Mterwards I was very tempted to get into a car and take a baseball bat - of which I have several that I used during my sporting years -- and do damage to those people. I ask the government to provide a proper service to the community. Frankston has been a brilliant community and next August the twenty fifth anniversary of the city will be an ideal opportunity of saying that the city is a fine, law-abiding one. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 579

Another matter of interest relates to abuse of the Tobacco Act. One section of the 1987 Act refers to people being induced to smoke a tobacco product. It has come to my attention that recently certain tobacconists and tobacco promoters have been issuing samples in the metropolitan area, including Karingal in my electorate. The relevant provision is contained in section 8 -- Free samples - and states:

(1) A person must not, for the purpose of inducing or promoting­ (a) the sale of a tobacco product; or (b) the use or consumption of a tobacco product; or (c) smoking generally - offer, give or distribute to a member of the public a free sample of a tobacco product or a product which advertises a tobacco product. The penalty for the first offence is ten units and 100 units for a second or subsequent offence. The only exemption is contained in section 8(2) which states:

Nothing in sub-section (1) applies to a gratuitous offer of a tobacco product to a person without any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit or inducement to purchase a tobacco product. That refers to people smoking other people's cigarettes for research purposes but does not apply to the situation at Karingal where a manufacturer's products are being handed out without any name on the box or on the cigarette. There is no identification on the product. The Act refers to supplying tobacco to a person aged sixteen years. A thirteen-year-old at Karingal was offered an unbranded cigarette and asked to complete a questionnaire. That is against the law. I ask the Minister for Health in the other place to investigate the matter. I am aware that the subject of tobacco consumption is a responSibility of the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation but the advertising issue is the responsibility of Health Department Victoria. During the three-year life of the Act cigarette companies have until 1 July 1991 to eliminate advertising boards promoting or advertising tobacco products. The outdoor advertising industry agreed to remove half the advertising boards within the first eighteen months of the life of the Act, and the remaining half during the following eighteen months. The particular advertising signs I refer to are illuminated ones that must be eliminated in 1991. Many of the signs are not fully illuminated, and perhaps have just several lights underneath them. They are not specially constructed or illuminated by neon lighting . . I ask the Minister to examine that provision of the Tobacco Act, and in the name of law and order ensure that people are forced to honour Victorian laws. If we are not prepared to look after the minor laws and statutes passed by the House, and issued in regulations, there is no way young people will respect the law and order issues that now confront the community in what is almost a lawless-type young society in the suburbs. I plead with the government to take some action as has been taken in the Frankston local press, by groups of women and young people, in the schools and T AFE colleges, by the police, the community and the councils. They have requested that something be done. GRIEVANCES

580 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) -- The matter I wish to grieve about concerns an issue that is of major importance to the people of my electorate, and is probably the most important item for people in northern Victoria - that is, water pricing. Mr J. F. McGrath - Right throughout Victoria. Mr MAUGHAN -- Yes, throughout Victoria, but particularly in northern Victoria where the $500 million a year generates economic activity amounting to three or four times that figure. It is a significant part of economic activity in Victoria, and certainly in the Goulburn Valley. Water pricing is of grave concern in those areas. The Rural Water Commission has a long-term objective to achieve a zero rate of return over about fifteen years. As its first step to that objective it has introduced a five-year plan covering the years 1990-91 to 1994-95. Now we are into the first year of that plan and already farmers are being faced with an increase in water pricing of about 12 per cent. I hardly need remind honourable members that the increase is at a most inopportune time given the very parlous state of farming industries at the moment; the sales of wheat and wool have fallen by 40 to 60 per cent, and dairy returns are down 25 to 35 per cent. The horticultural industries are finding it difficult to survive. It is a most inopportune time for water prices to increase. Further, farmers are concerned not only about this year but also price increases that will continue for five years at the rate of the relevant consumer price index plus 2 or 3 per cent. That amounts to a 10 or 12 per cent increase for the next five years and takes absolutely no account of the ability of the farming industry to pay. At the very least the time span should be increased to provide some relief to the farming community in its present difficulties; preferably the whole method of setting water pricing should be examined to reduce the cost substantially, and certainly to reduce the incidence of price increases envisaged for the next four or five years. Apart from the cost to farmers there are many reasons for effecting price reductions. Everyone will be aware of the grave dangers to Victoria of salinity and also most people know of the plans to control salinity particularly in irrigation areas. Those plans are based very much on the ability of farmers to contribute towards the cost of the plans. If substantial increases to water pricing occur, as is now envisaged, with a further levy on farmers to pay for the community side of the salinity management plans, as well as the costs on the farms, the economic circumstances now facing the farming community will lead to an inability to carry out any of those works. It is not a personal problem for individual farmers, but it is a problem that we should all be concerned about at a State and national level. The Chairman of the Salinity Program Advisory Council, Mr John Dainton, pointed out at a recent Agricultural Outlook Conference the dangers that we face with farmers not being able to pick up their share of the expenditure. The Minister for Agriculture GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 581

appreciates the difficulties that the farming community has in meeting the substantial increase in the price of water. The farming community has shown its concern by holding mass meetings throughout Victoria. In my home town of K yabram, 600 people attended a meeting; a further 150 attended a meeting at Leitchville and approximately 600 attended a meeting at Strathmerton. At all those meetings concern was expressed about it not being possible to pay the envisaged substantial increase in water prices. A number of steps must be taken. The State has a responsibility to pick up the cost of the irrigation system above the head works because it can be clearly demonstrated that the whole of the community benefits from our irrigation industry. Traditionally the State has carried a substantial proportion of the cost of providing irrigation facilities that benefit not only the farming community but also the whole State of Victoria. As I mentioned earlier, considerable economic activity is the result of irrigation works. It is reasonable that the State government should pick up all the costs above the head works - the dams.

I am strongly opposed to the current method of current cost accounting because it gives a distorted view of the amount of depreciation that needs to be set aside to replace assets. Given that the dams and channels have been adequately maintained over a long period it is unlikely that any substantial replacement will be required during the next 100 years. Current cost accounting is completely inappropriate to determine the amount of money that the irrigation industry should set aside on an annual basis for depreciation. It is difficult to understand the reasons why the irrigation industry should be required to pay a dividend to the government. It is yet another tax on a segment of the community to provide revenue to this cash-starved government. There is no economic justification for requiring a dividend on the assets used in the irrigation industry. A wide-ranging inquiry should be made into the Rural Water Commission to examine its efficiencies and to determine better ways to deliver its services. I pay tribute to the Rural Water Commission. Over recent years I have found considerable efficiencies in its operation saving approximately $23 million. I recognise that efficiency but I believe greater efficiencies can be found, particularly in the construction area. An inquiry into the ways and means of improving the efficiency of the irrigation industry is justified. One has only to look at what is happening in New South Wales where exactly the same irrigation facility, which Victoria provides at a cost of approximately $15 a megalitre, is provided at $10 a megalitre. A greater participation of the farming community in the management of the system can be made so that the cost to farmers is reduced. I refer now to the Dharnya Cultural Centre in the Barmah Forest in northern Victoria. The centre was established in 1984 as a residential complex and since that time it has served a useful purpose providing resources for schools and visitors to look at the history of the Barmah Forest and the history of the Aboriginal community. Although the centre has a strongly Aboriginal focus and contains many Aboriginal artefacts, it also docunlents the achievements of the white comnlunity in the area over the past 150 years or more. During the past five years the centre has been managed by a GRIEVANCES

582 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991 committee made up of representatives of the Aboriginal community, the Shire of Nathalia and government departments. I believe it has worked successfully as an excellent centre, which I have visited on many occasions. The difficulty is that Aboriginal representatives believe their views are not being adequately considered. They believe the centre should be devoted more to Aboriginal culture and less to the joint venture between the white culture and the Aboriginal culture. Conflicts have occurred on the committee and the Aboriginal representatives have complained about the fact that the Ministry for Conservation and Environment representatives have to some degree dominated the deliberations to the detriment of the Aboriginal community and they have now withdrawn from the committee. Representatives of the Shire of Nathalia were aware that some problems were developing and they wrote to the former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, on 24 November 1989 seeking an urgent meeting with her to discuss the issue and the future of the committee. That meeting did not come about and so on 28 January this year a letter was written to the now Minister for Conservation and Environment seeking consultation at the earliest possible date. The letter says: We the undersigned, representatives of the local government nominated by the Nathalia Shire Council to the Advisory Committee of the Dharnya Cultural Centre in the Barmah Forest, hereby seek consultation with you at the earliest possible date. The regular attendance, time and effort by the shire representatives is evidence of our full commitment towards the success of the centre so far. We believe, we the shire representatives, have at all times helped and supported all the projects of both cultures, and in so doing have gained the essential support of the majority of the community. That is true: Without much support the project cannot be expected to succeed. We consider there is further scope for development which should attract visitors interest in the future. In view of the fact the Yorta Yorta Murray Goulburn Regional Council Incorporated sector have withdrawn their support it believes it is essential that the Shire of Nathalia representatives are retained as they have given their services freely and without reward to this project since its inception. As at today these letters have received no response from the Minister. I appeal to the Minister to give these people the opportunity of discussing their concerns with him. As the letter indicates, the members of the Advisory Committee of the Dharnya Cultural Centre have given freely of their time. They are not looking to dominate the committee; they want to work on a cooperative basis. They are happy and interested to have a cooperative arrangement between the Aboriginal culture on the one hand and the history of white settlement on the other. They simply seek the opportunity of allowing the work of the committee to continue. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 583

The members of the committee are fearful that the Minister for Conservation and Environment is about to declare that the committee is dissolved and that the centre will be either managed by the Department of Conservation and Environment alone or handed over entirely to the Aboriginal community. While no doubt exists that the Aboriginal community has a real interest and a long history in the area - I agree with the point made that more guides of Aboriginal background should be working in the Barmah State Forest and in the centre - it would be detrimental to the centre if its management became entirely the province of the Department of Conservation and Environment on the one hand or the Aboriginal community on the other.

I hope the Minister for Conservation and Environment will be able to meet with the members of the committee who, as I said, for many years have been prepared to give so willingly of their time.

Another matter I raise briefly relates to the rural residential strategy for the town of Kyabram, about which a long-running dispute has gone on now for some four and a half years. The strategy concerns rural residential development surrounding the township of Kyabram. A difficulty exists in obtaining the agreement of the Department of Planning and Housing to amendments to the existing planning scheme for the area. Numerous amendments have been made to the proposal and deputations have met with the Minister for Planning and Housing. Prior to Christmas the Minister gave me a personal assurance that before any decision is made he will visit the area. No indication has yet been received as to when that visit will take place.

The town of Kyabram and the surrounding municipalities of Deakin and Rodneyare completely united on the strategy and are concerned that again the Minister will make a decision without consulting the people most intimately affected by it, that is, those who li ve in the area, particularly in the Shire of Deakin, the Shire of Rodney and the town of Kyabram.

The final matter I raise relates to the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting. I was concerned and upset at the performance last evening when some eight honourable members spoke during the debate, raising a variety of topics of concern to them and to Parliament. While two Ministers were present in the House, the Minister at the table, the Attorney-General, took approximately 10 seconds to respond. He simply said he would refer the matters raised to the relevant Ministers.

What happened last evening represents a complete denial of the rights of honourable members to raise matters in the adjournment debate and receive a response there and then from the relevant Ministers. An alarming trend is developing: one Minister comes in, sits at the table, and indicates that the matters will be referred to the Ministers for their comment. Six months ago I raised a matter and I still have not had a response from the Minister with whom I raised it. The adjournment debate is a complete waste of time if one raises a point of urgent concern and still has had no response six months later.

Mr J. F. McGrath - Ministerial incompetence! GRIEVANCES

584 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Mr MAUGHAN -- It is not only Ministerial incompetence but also Ministerial arrogance that Ministers are not prepared to come into Parliament and respond to legitimate concerns expressed by honourable members on both sides of the House. Last night honourable members witnessed one of the worst examples of their rights being overlooked by Ministers. Mrs lflRSH (Wantirna) - I raise a grievous situation that exists in the Wantirna area in particular and the outer urban ring of Melbourne in general. In recent times this situation has been referred to by the ubiquitous term "infrastructure". Mr J. F. McGrath interjected. Mrs lfiRSH - No, not quite as far as Warmambool. As I said, the situation to which I refer is called "infrastructure". It means, in simple terms, those services that traditionally have been provided by governments to people in particular areas. It is a fairly new term and the services provided and expected by people to be provided by governments have not been provided for very long, in historical terms. In my youth I lived in a small country town where we had never heard of the term "infrastructure", nor did we have any. We had a bit of a track that people made their way along with difficulty. We had a school, the football ground, the Mechanics Institute hall - where pictures were shown once a fortnight on a Friday night - and we had the annual Catholic Ball, which was a wonderful night. That was about the extent of what we had. Mr J. F. McGrath interjected. Mrs lflRSH -- About 25 years ago, when I moved with my family to the then outer suburbs, there was nothing there either. All we had was a rocky road that went through the creek to the shops. We had to wheel our enormous prams along it, sometimes with a couple of children and our shopping in the pram. However, the concept of the provision of services by government in the expanding outer areas had started to form. Well behind the development of the areas came the schools, the preschools, the health services and so on. During the Whitlam years, which were years of high inspiration, an enormous boost was given to the areas. The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister for Small Business is out of order in walking between the Chair and the honourable member for Wantirna while she is speaking. Mrs lfiRSH - Thank you for your consideration, Mr Speaker. I have been distracted. Mr Maclellan - Go back to the Catholic Ball. MrJ. F. McGrath interjected. Mrs lfiRSH - The honourable member for Warrnambool and I were sharing things because of similar experiences in the past, in different country towns. GRIEVANCES

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 585

As I said, 25 years ago not much infrastructure existed in the outer urban area. As I said also, the Whitlam years were years of vision and resulted in making things a lot better.

Currently the outer suburbs are growing at a fast rate. Families move to them because they cannot afford to live anywhere else, unless they move to the country. The services provided for young families are still not adequate, either in country Victoria or in the outer urban areas. People still do not have the sorts of services they have come to expect will be provided by governments. Any Federal government has a policy of reduced expenditure. Another feature of the present time is a reduction in revenue for the provision of government services. Governments at all levels will have to address the problems that have arisen; they will have to work out where the money will come from to provide services needed by people. I am not referring to essential things like a water supply, because that is beyond me; I do not know how governments will get around that problem. I am confining my arguments and discussion to matters I know about because all one has to do to obtain water in the outer suburbs is turn on the tap.

There are other issues in the outer eastern suburbs that need urgent attention, particularly infrastructure needs, buzz words I do not like using but which people understand. Two important issues for people living in the outer suburbs are the condition of their roads and the lack of availability of public transport, particularly for people who do not drive such as very young people, many women and older people.

It must be said that over the past eight years health services have improved dramatically. In the education field one or two additional primary schools are needed in the outer east. The one-teacher rural schools need to be upgraded to suburban primary schools - and I have already referred, in particular, to the needs of the Wantirna South Primary School. Nevertheless, the condition of the roads in the outer suburbs are of most concern to people in the electorate I represent. Twenty-five years ago, when my family moved to the area, Wantirna had only orchard roads with one lane each way. The surface of such roads is shallow and cannot take peak hour traffic and heavy truck volume. Since that time some money has been provided for road building, but not enough for the needs of the area.

Federal governments of both political persuasions have not provided the money needed to bring our road infrastructure up to date. The people of the outer suburbs would benefit if the_rail services enjoyed by people living in the inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne were extended, which would facilitate the movement not only of commuters but also of freight to and from Melbourne.

To cater for heavy freight transport roads must have thick tarmacs, which are expensive. The dramatic increase in population in the eastern suburbs has brought with it an increased volume of traffic, so the money needs to be found from somewhere to improve the roads, which is difficult at a time when the Commonwealth government is urging the GRIEVANCES

586 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

States to cut their spending, the States' revenue bases are dropping and the user-pays principle is gaining support. Many families in the outer eastern suburbs, for example, are forced to run four cars, not because they want to but because they have to. Many families who moved to the area twenty years ago now have grown up children who have to travel to Monash University, the Swinburne Institute of Technology or Victoria College, which are the closest education facilities to the area, or to work; at least one adult in the family has to drive a long distance to work; and the other partner may have to drive to part-time work as well as having to drop off and pick up young children from child-care centres. Such people use a great deal of petrol, which is heavily taxed by Federal and State governments. I believe a substantial amount of the petrol tax should be used to maintain roads in the area. To use another buzz word, a high proportion of the petrol tax should be hypothecated -- Mr Maughan - It's one of the Minister's favourite words. Mrs IHRSH - The members for Rodney and Warrnambool are obviously enjoying my grasp of such language. In practice, hypothecation would mean that some of the money spent on petrol by people in the outer east would be returned to them in the form of money for roads in an area that has a substantial and growing population but inadequate roads to cater for it. We must get the money from somewhere to pay for road and transport funding, if for no other reason than that Australian society is characterised by the continuing growth of the outer suburbs of our capital cities and the continued expansion of provincial centres. It is important that some of the tax gained from the sale of petrol by Federal and State governments is used to maintain our roads. The use of our roads by heavy freight transport is heavily subsidised. Trucks chop up the roads far more than cars, so the industry should have to pay more than it does for the damage trucks do to our roads, rather than ordinary family road users having to pay through the nose for the petrol they use, the revenue gained by Federal and State governments being used to pay for all sorts of things other than maintaining roads. When no other means of transport are available it is unfair for governments to insist that people who use the most petrol because they have to travel the longest distances should have to pay more in tax while receiving little, if any, benefit. The money gained through petrol taxes should be used to benefit most the people who pay them. The other important infrastructure issue in the outer eastern suburbs is public transport. Over the past nine years the Labor government has enhanced the public transport system through the introduction of the light rail system, which I believe is one of the most cost-effective and safest means of transport. Many people say that more buses should be provided, but I believe fixed rail vehicles are a better form of public transport because buses chop up the roads in much the same way as trucks do, and are almost as polluting. DOCK LANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 587

Mr Harrowfield interjected.

Mrs lflRSH -- That is, other than the bus service in the electorate of the honourable member for Mitcham, who says his buses are not polluting.

From experience and observation I believe fixed rail transport is the cleanest and most efficient form of public transport. I look forward to the time in the near future when the light rail link from the city to Middleborough Road, East Burwood, is extended to my electorate of Wantirna.

I know the people living in that area are looking forward to that service. Other areas of the Wantirna electorate will benefit from an extension to our fixed rail network. For example, a fixed rail link running from Huntingdale station past Monash University and AFL Park along Wellington Road to Ferntree Gully station would provide a wonderful transport service for residents of the new suburb of Rowville. These people have access to little transport and would benefit greatly from such a move. The service would be rather costly but governments are expected to provide the infrastructure for transport services.

That would be a priority for the area following the duplication of the necessary roads and the provision of the light rail link to Knox City and Stud Road. I have no doubt that transport infrastructure is the issue of the future and that it must be addressed by the community at large.

Question agreed to.

DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY BILL

Introduction and first reading

For Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General), Mr Baker introduced a Bill to establish the Docklands Authority and to make other provision to facilitate the development of the docklands area and for other purposes.

Read first time.

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Withdrawn on motion of Mr Baker, for Mr ROPER (Treasurer). TRANSPORT (CAR POOLING) BILL

588 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

TRANSPORT (CAR POOLING) BILL Introduction and first reading Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) introduced a Bill to amend the Transport Act 1983 to facilitate car pooling and for other purposes.

Read first time.

RACING (SUNDAY MIXED SPORTS GATHERINGS) BILL Second reading Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) -- I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Racing Act 1958 to provide for bookmakers to bet on events in mixed sports gatherings held on Sundays. Mixed sports gatherings are essentially organised by the local community and consist of athletics or bicycle races or other kinds of games or pastimes, such as gymkhanas or highland gatherings. The government has received representations from organisations conducting mixed sports gatherings seeking permission for bookmakers to operate at those events held on a Sunday. Under existing legislation this is not possible. The famous Stawell Gift is a good example. Currently this athletics carnival is conducted over three days at Easter. Bookmakers can operate at the oval on the Easter Saturday and Monday but not on Sunday. The Stawell Athletic Club is keen for this barrier to be removed. The same situation applies to a number of other organisations that conduct two or three-day programs as well as those sporting and community groups that hold the gathering on a Sunday. The Bill will also clarify that betting at mixed sports gatherings is not contrary to the provisions of the Lotteries, Gaming and Betting Act 1966. These changes are consistent with the wishes of the Victorian Bookmakers Association Ltd and community-based organisations. The changes reflect the government's commitment to working in close cooperation with local bodies which foster both sport and community involvement.

I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Dr NAPTHlNE (Portland).

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - I move:

That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 28 March. RACING (SUNDAY MIXED SPORTS GATHERINGS) BILL

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 589

Dr NAPTIflNE (Portland) -- On the question of time, Mr Speaker, I suggest that the debate on the Bill should be adjourned for two weeks. This measure is a major social change to allow betting on Sundays. There is a need for wide community consultation. The Stawell Gift has been conducted for 135 years and the fact that the Bill may not be passed before Easter is irrelevant. I suggest a two-week adjournment so that the opposition can have wider consultation. Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) (By leave) -- The people of Stawell, bookmakers and all those associated with the athletes would prefer the Bill to be passed so that betting can take place on Sunday this year. A precedent has been set in Victoria as Moonee Valley has had betting on its Sunday races for the past three or four years. The Bill will allow that arrangement to apply to athletics, but that is a matter for the opposition to decide. The government would like Sunday betting to be introduced this year at Stawell. I am prepared to cooperate as much as possible to provide the opposition with the background material it may require. As the government would prefer betting to be available on the Stawell Gift this year, I suggest that a one-week adjournment is appropriate. Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) -- On the question of time, Mr Speaker, I am a little concerned about the adjournment of the debate for one week, as the Minister proposes. This may not be a large Bill, but the Minister is aware that the Bill needed to be introduced some time earlier to enable it to be passed in time. As Parliament has been in session for almost two weeks, I should think the Bill could have been introduced earlier so that honourable members could have the opportunity to talk to a number of interested groups about it. We need to talk to the Victoria Racing Club, the people at Stawell and many other groups. I hope we will be able to do that in the next few days. The Minister must realise that this Bill represents a social change. The community needs to be consulted and we nt'ed to get some feedback from these people to understand how they feel about it. I believe that the Minister is realistic and that he will give the opposition parties the opportunity of finding out how the community feels about this change. Mr TANNER (Caulfield) -- Also on the question of time, Mr Speaker, I appeal to the Minister to grant the request of the honourable member for Portland for an adjournment of the debate for two weeks. It is absolute arrogance for a Minister to present a Bill in Parliament and then say to the opposition parties that they can have only one week to consider it. That is totally insufficient. When one considers just the state of mail delivery in our community, one realises the opposition parties will need more than seven days to send out to and receive information from the various community groups. If the Minister is sincere in his wish that the Bill be passed this before Easter I suggest he should have produced the Bill last week. It is not good enough for him to produce it this •

RACING (SUNDAY MIXED SPORTS GATHERINGS) BILL

590 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

week and then display the arrogance of the executive by saying the opposition can have only seven days in which to consider it.

Under those circumstances I appeal to the Minister to show his sincerity and grant the request of the honourable member for Portland.

Mr REYNOLDS (Gisborne) - As has been pointed out by other honourable members the Minister has had two weeks in which to trot out this "huge" Bill. In effect, it consists of only one clause of five lines that contains the amending provisions.

He seeks an adjournment of the debate for one week, which means the Bill will not be debated until next Thursday. Next Thursday is Easter eve and the Upper House will probably not be sitting. Therefore, he will not get his Bill passed anyway, so I do not know what he is talking about.

It is ludicrous for him to seek an adjournment of the debate for one week. If he had asked for a two-day adjournment, I could see some sense in it, but it is stupid to adjourn the debate until next Thursday, because he will not get the Bill passed anyway.

The SPEAKER - Order! The question is:

That the motion be agreed to.

As there are some voices for the Noes, and a division is called for, I ask the Oerk to ring the bells.

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - Mr Speaker, --

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister, on a point of order.

Mr TREZISE - I appreciate the views of the opposition, but by the same token it is frustrating. I am sure we could·have had the Bill through next week if possible, with the ubnost cooperation, but we will certainly support a two-week --

The SPEAKER - Order! The question has been put. I shall ask again: is a division required?

Honourable Members - Yes.

The SPEAKER - Order! A division is required.

House divided on motion: COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 591

Ayes, 45 Mr Andrianopoulos MrsHill MrRowe Mr Baker MrsHirsh MrSandon Mrs Barker Mr Jolly MrSeltz Mr Batchelor MrKennan Mr Sercombe (Teller) MrCain MrKennedy MrsSetches Mr Cole (Teller) MsKirner Mr A.J. Sheehan MrCrabb Mr LeiJdtton Mr F.P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham Mr Md::utcheon MrShell Mr Dollis MrMcDonald MrSimmonds MrErnst MrMathews MrSpyker MrFordham Mr Micallef MrThomson MrsGarbutt MrNorris Mr Trezise MrGavin MrPope OrVaughan Mr Hamilton MrsRay MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRoper MrsWilson

Noes, 38 Mr Bildstien (Teller) Mr Ja~ MrPescott Mr Brown Mr Jonn MrReynolds Mr Oark Mr Kennett Mr Richardson Mr Coleman Mr Leigh Mr E.R. Smith Mr Cooper Mr Lie6erman Mr 1.W. Smith Mr Delzoppo Mr J.F. McGrath MrSteggall Mr Dickirison Mr W.o. McGrath Mr StoCl(dale Mr Elder Mr McNamara MrTanner Mr Evans Mr Maclellan MrsWade Mr Gude Mr Maughan (Teller) MrWallace Mr Hayward Or Napthine MrWeideman Mr Heffeman Mr Perrin DrWells Mr Honeywood Mr Perton Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday, 28 March.

COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. INTRODUCTION The idea of a "case transfer system" was first suggested by the Civil Justice Committee which published its report in 1984. The committee found that to achieve the greatest possible efficiency in the administration of civil justice in Victoria, there was an urgent need to match "case loads to judge power." The committee recommended the introduction of procedures for "case release" or removal of cases from one court to another. CASE TRANSFER COMMITIEE On the basis of this recommendation the Case Transfer Committee, headed by the Hon. Mr Justice McGarvie, was established. The committee found that the existing system of determining court jurisdiction by reference to inflexible monetary limits leads to inefficient use of available judicial resources. COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL

592 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

The underlying principle in developing the current model for case transfer is that case loads should be appropriately matched to the qualifications, experience, authority and productivity of the three levels of courts. The Bill before the House introduces a case transfer system that does not exist in any other country with a common law system. This Bill is consistent with this government's commitment to the continuing improvement and upgrading of the judicial system and the accessibility of justice to all - in many cases, leading the world. The case transfer system will facilitate the transfer of cases between the Supreme, County and Magistrates' courts depending on available "judge time", the nature and complexity of the case or cases, and the consent of the parties. It is likely to result in significant reductions in court waiting lists. There are two main objectives: to transfer individual cases so that the seriousness of the case is matched to the skill, expertise and authority of the court concerned; and to transfer groups of cases which lie close to jurisdictional boundaries so as to match case loads to the capacity of the respective courts to handle them. HOW THE CASE TRANSFER SYSTEM OPERATES Case transfers will be the exception, not the rule. Monetary limits will still be the same determinant in deciding which court should hear a case. It will not, however, be an exclusive determinant. INDMDUAL'TRANSFERS The principal concern in the individual case transfer will be its seriousness. The concept of "seriousness" encompasses the following dimensions: gravity - for example, a case involves large sums of money or because certain allegations, such as fraud, make it of particular concern to the parties; difficulty - a case involves complex legal or factual issues; importance - a case raises matters of general public interest, for example, because it is a "test" case. The parties will be given the opportunity to make written submissions as to whether there should be a transfer. If necessary, a review will be heard by the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge, or their delegates, based on the written and, sometimes, additional oral submissions. GENERAL TRANSFERS General transfers are designed to maintain the equilibrium between the workloads of the various courts. This is impossible to achieve by statutory changes to courts' jurisdictions alone. General transfers can be initiated only by the courts. For example, if the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge agree that the Supreme Court is overloaded and this could be offset by transferring 100 cases to the County Court, the Chief Justice can instruct the Prothonotary to select around 120 cases of a particular type which appear to be near the jurisdictional border line and suitable for transfer. The same COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL

Th~y,21~h1991 ASSEMBLY 593

two Masters of the Supreme and County courts as deal with individual transfers would decide on the most suitable 100 cases for transfer. A notice from the Chief Justice will then advise the solicitors for the parties that it is proposed that their cases be transferred to the County Court. They would then have the opportunity to make submissions. Again the final decision rests with the Chief Justice and Chief Judge. The files of the 100 cases will then be transferred to the County Court where they become County Court cases. However, in dealing with them the County Court can exercise the jurisdiction which the Supreme Court would have exercised had it heard the case. The cases are "spliced" into the County Court list so that' they are heard no later, and usually earlier, than if they had remained with the Supreme Court. General tra~fers between the County and Magistrates' courts ~ill operate in similar way. INCREASE IN JURISDICfIONAL LIMITS In introducing this new system, this Bill also increases the jurisdictional limits of the County and Magistrates' courts. To establish as flexible and accommodating a background as possible in which to initiate the case transfer process, the limit of the County Court in civil cases has been increased from $100 000 to $200 000. Similarly, the limit of the Magistrates' Court in civil cases other than personal injury has been increased from $25 000 to $40 000. Agreement has been reached with the Attorneys-General of New South Wales and Queensland to set similar jurisdictional limits. RESERVE JUOCES The Bill also amends an anomaly in the provisions dealing with reserve judges of the Supreme Court appointed under the Constitution Act and of the County Court appointed under the County Court Act. A reserve judge is a judge of the Supreme or County courts aged over 60 who has served at least ten years as a judge and who has elected to retire from full-time duty. A reserve judge continues to be a judge until he or she resigns or retires but can only perform the duties'and exercise the powers of a judge if the Chief Justice or Chief Judge so declares. This mechanism allows the court to deal with temporary case load problems. A reserve judge is entitled to receive an amount equivalent to the pension to which he or she would have been entitled upon retirement or resignation and, when performing active duties, is entitled to be paid an additional amount and an allowance. However, there is no provision in the legislation for the cessation or suspension of the pension and allowances of a reserve judge who takes up a Crown appointment or practises as a barrister or solicitor. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the suspension of payment to the reserve judge for the duration of such an appointment. It also provides that a reserve judge must obtain the consent of the Chief Justice or Chief Judge before taking up such an appointment. 77597/91-20 THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL

594 ASSEMBLY Thu~y,21~hl991

CONCLUSION The case transfer system introduced by this Bill is the product of more than four years of thorough research and consultation by the McGarvie committee. Its implementation puts Victoria in the forefront of visionary reform of the judicial system to the benefit of the judiciary, legal practitioners and the community as a whole. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs WADE (Kew).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 4 April.

THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL PROCEDURES) BILL Second reading Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958, the Act relating to electoral proceedings. These amendments have primarily resulted from observations made by the Electoral Commissioner following the 1988 State election and by-elections held since and, in several cases, will bring Victoria's electoral laws into line with the Commonwealth. Most of the amendments are procedural. However, I would like to briefly outline three of the more significant proposals. First, the current provisions of the Act, in section 243, deem certain actions to be bribery. Section 243(1) deals with a candidate or agent of the candidate who hires a car to take an elector to vote, and section 243(2) deals with a candidate who gives a gift or donation to a club or association. At present, both offences are strict liability offences. The proposed amendment would require the person committing the alleged offence to have acted corruptly in order for the offence to be proved. Requiring the mental element of corruptness will make these offences consistent with similar bribery offences in the Act. Secondly, in relation to political parties, the Bill provides that a political party - other than a Parliamentary party -- must have at least 500 Victorian electors or people eligible to be electors in order to be registered. The amendment addresses an anomaly where a party at present needs only 500 members to be registered, without regard to whether these members reside in Victoria or are under eighteen years of age. In addition, consistent with Commonwealth provisions, the Bill provides for the deregistration of a registered political party which does not regularly endorse candidates. The amendment ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENf) BILL (No. 2)

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 595

ensures that the benefits which registered parties are entitled to - such as electors' enrolment details - are not available for parties not standing candidates. Thirdly, the Bill requires the Electoral Commissioner to provide up-to-date electoral rolls in electronic format, if requested, to each political party as well as individual members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. This amendment specifies when the rolls are to be provided and how often additions and deletions to the roll are to be supplied. It also requires the Electoral Commissioner, following a redivision, to provide an up-to-date roll based on the new boundaries to registered political parties as soon as practicable. This amendment is a logical consequence of advances in technology. Honourable members will have noticed that several of these miscellaneous amendments are included as Part 7 of the Election Donations Disclosure and Public Funding Bill, which is currently before the Legislative Assembly. The government is at present considering its options in relation to that Bill. As the Electoral Commissioner has indicated that any amendments to electoral procedures should be enacted well before the earliest possible date for the calling of the next State election, the government has decided to proceed with these amendments separately. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs WADE (Kew).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 4 ApriL

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2) Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. INTRODUCfION The Bill replaces the Administration and Probate (Amendment) Bill introduced in 1989. It comprises the provisions of that Bill as amended by amendments circulated and debated in the House on 13 November last year. The reason for its reintroduction is to clarify the purpose and effect of those amendments. DE FACTO PARTNERS The most significant change to the first Bill concerns de facto partners. The first Bill provided for a de facto partner to inherit a share of his or her partner's estate in the same way as if the partners were married. Under that Bill a de facto partner would inherit: if there is a child of the relationship between the de facto partner and the deceased; or ADMINISTRA TION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2)

596 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

if the deceased has no legal spouse and no children, and the de facto partner and deceased lived together for at least one year; or if the partner and the deceased lived together for at least two years, during which period the deceased did not liv~ with his or her legal spouse. The opposition expressed concern about these provisions (which are similar to New South Wales legislation) on the grounds that they are too generous to de facto partners at the expense of estranged spouses. The new Bill addresses this concern. Under the new provisions a de facto partner will automatically inherit if the de facto relationship has lasted for at least two years, but not if the deceased has left a spouse and has lived with the spouse at any time during the five years prior to the death. The other circumstances in which a de facto partner will inherit under the new Bill is if the entire estate would otherwise pass to the children of the de facto relationship. This will occur only if there is no legal spouse, and no children or grandchildren of former relationships. The new Bill thus ensures that an estranged spouse is excluded from sharing in the estate only where it is clear beyond any doubt that the marital relationship has broken down. In keeping with the policy underlying the first Bill, the new Bill also ensures that de facto partners in long-term relationships will normally inherit a share of the estate. A de facto partner who does not qualify to inherit because the relationship has lasted less than two years, or because the deceased's marriage broke down less than five years before the death, will be able to apply to the court for a discretionary grant of provision from the estate. EQUATING RIGHTS OF DE FACfO PARTNERS AND SPOUSES In the earlier debate on the Bill the opposition made the criticism that the Bill equated de facto relationships with marriage. This criticism is clearly unfounded. A spouse is entitled to inherit from the day of the marriage, while a de facto partner must wait two years to establish the seriousness of the relationship. Furthermore, the spouse takes precedence if there is both a de facto partner and a spouse, unless it is clear beyond all doubt that the marriage has broken down. ARBITRARY NATURE OF TIME LIMITS The opposition also criticised the Bill because of time limits which may result in injustice in some cases, for example where a de facto relationship has lasted one year and 364 days. The purpose of including time limits is to provide a just solution in the overwhelming majority of cases. Testator's family maintenance creates a safety net for the remaining cases since a de facto partner who is not able to comply with the time limits can apply to the court for provision from the estate. Surely it is better to have a rule, even if it does not work perfect justice in every case, if the alternative is to completely deprive de facto partners from any right to automatic inheritance. ADMINISTRA TION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2)

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 597

FAIRNESS TO SPOUSES The opposition expressed concern that if there is both a spouse and a de facto partner the spouse will in some circ1.Jrnstances get nothing. Under the new Bill the only circumstances in which a spouse will not automatically inherit is if he or she has not lived with the deceased for at least five years before the death and there is a de facto relationship of at least two years duration. In these circumstances it is fair that the estranged spouse does not have the same automatic right to inherit as a party to a marriage which has not broken down. If the spouse has a legitimate claim to support from the estate; for example, to replace maintenance payments, this is more appropriately met through a testator's family maintenance application than through automatic inheritance.

F AMILY PROVISION The first Bill extended the right to apply to the court for family provision to the following: a de facto partner; a fonner spouse where the divorce occurred less than twelve months before the deceased's death; a stepchild who lived in the deceased's household as a member of the deceased's family at the time of the death; . any person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for the entire twelve-month period immediately before the deceased's death; and a former de facto spouse in narrowly defined circumstances. The purpose of the extension was to ensure that family members, and others for whom the deceased had a moral obligation to make provision, were able to apply to the court for that provision. It has been argued that the proposal to extend the right to include any person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased for twelve months before his or her death is too wide. The concern is that it will encourage claims that will cause delay in the distribution of estates. The new Bill therefore restricts this category of applicants to dependent parents and grandchildren of the deceased, and dependent members of the deceased's household. Former spouses, spouses, de facto partners, children and stepchildren may of course apply under other provisions of the Bill without showing dependency.

OTHER AMENDMENTS Other amendments have been made to clarify and improve the operation of the Bill. For example, the new Bill clarifies that spouses and de facto partners are still to be regarded as living together when they are physically separated in circumstances which do not suggest that the relationship has broken down; for example, separation because of hospital treatment or an overseas trip. Another amendment improving the Bill is the requirement that a de facto partner must claim his or her entitlement within six months of the death or grant of representation, unless the court extends the time. This will prevent delay in the distribution of estates. ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENf) BB..L (No. 2)

598 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

A provision has also been inserted giving the court power to make a declaration that a person claiming to be a de facto partner is entitled to share in the estate. This will overcome uncertainty about whether the person is so entitled, with the least possible cost to the estate.

Another improvement is the amendment to clause 10 of the first Bill which permits a spouse or a de facto partner to purchase the matrimonial home from the estate. The clause provides that if the spouse or partner's share of the estate is less than the value of the matrimonial home, the spouse or partner must pay the difference into the estate before distribution ofthe residuary estate. This may cause a problem if part of the residuary estate is held in trust for minor children. In these circumstances, the residuary estate might not be distributed for up to eighteen years, resulting in a lengthy interest-free loan to the spouse or partner. The Bill has now been amended to provide that the balance must be paid into the estate before distribution, or within one year of the spouse electing to purchase the matrimonial home, whichever occurs sooner.

Other amendments have been made in response to suggestions by the Law Institute of Victoria which has indicated its strong support for the new Bill. An example of such an amendment concerns the prOvision permitting a former spouse to apply for family provision if the divorce occurred less than twelve months before the deceased's death. This is the period in which a former spouse can apply for a maintenance or property settlement under the Family Law Act. As such an application cannot be made after the death of a spouse, the Bill permits the former spouse to apply for family provision instead. The institute suggested an amendment to prevent an application for family provision being made if a property order or agreement has already been made under the Family Law Act. The amendment is necessary to preserve the finality of Family Court orders.

CONCLUSION The Bill deals with the way the estates of 60 per cent of Victorians who die without making wills is distributed. The current provisions, which are the harshest in any Australian jurisdiction, frequently result in family members who have the strongest moral claim to provision from the deceased's estate being left destitute, while the estate passes to remote relatives or consolidated revenue.

The Bill brings Victoria into line with other Australian jurisdictions and in so far as it concerns de facto partners, complements the reforms implemented by the government in 1988 relating to the property of living de facto partners.

The new Bill provides greater protection for estranged spouses and has the strong support not only of the Victorian Women's Consultative Council, whose membership is taken from women's organisations, but also of the Women's Electoral Lobby, whose initial concerns with the first Bill have been addressed in the new Bill. PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday. 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 599

The Uniting Church in Australia has also written expressing its strong support for the Bill. The opposition has recognised that "changes are necessary to the present law to give de facto partners rights to make claims on estates of deceased partners". The new Bill does this in a manner that has the overwhelming support not only of those influential bodies I have just mentioned but also the Law Institute of Victoria and the Bar Council. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs WADE (Kew). Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. We believe the Bill contains the same amendments that were circulated to the opposition with the first Bill. We should like to proceed with the second-reading debate and shall therefore be seeking an adjournment until next Thursday. The first Bill was debated on 13 November and amendments were circulated. Should the opposition want more time it will be provided but I stress we are eager to proceed with the second- reading debate. The reason we are not proceeding with the amendments that have already been circulated to the opposition - and the opposition has had a lot of notice - is that it has been simpler to incorporate them in a new Bill. Mrs WADE (Kew) - We agree to the adjournment on the undertaking given by the Attorney-General that he will extend the time if it is necessary. By the description of the Bill as outlined in the second-reading speech, it does appear that it is not exactly the same as the Bill with the amendments that were circulated during the last Parliamentary session. If that is the case we may indeed need extra time. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday, 28 March.

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make some urgent amendments to the Pathology Services Accreditation Act 1984. The main change is to give the Governor in Council the ability to exclude certain pathology tests from the scope of the principal Act. The Pathology Services Accreditation Act sets out to enhance the standards of performance of pathology services in Victoria. It requires pathology laboratories operating in Victoria to accredit with the Pathology Services Accreditation Board, and to comply with the minimum standards prescribed under the Act. ADJOURNMENT

600 ASSEMBLY Th~y,21~hl991

Among other things the Act also makes it an offence to conduct a pathology test except in a pathology service accredited with the board. An exception is made in the case of what is referred to in the Act as "exempted tests". Exempted tests can be carried out on behalf of a patient by or under the supervision of a medical practitioner in the course of his or her practice. A total of twenty tests have been prescribed as "exempted tests". Now that some experience has been gained with the legislation, it has become clear that there is a small group of tests which do not need to be regulated under the Act. These are what could be described as straightforward tests which are capable of being carried out by a person without the minimum qualifications specified in the regulations made under the Act or needing the facilities or equipment expected of an accredited pathology service. With this in mind the Bill will give .the Governor in Council, acting on the recommendation of the board, the capacity to exclude any test prescribed as an exempted test from the scope of the Act. Such tests will become known as "non regulated tests" and could lawfully be undertaken by any member of the community. Without anticipating what the board may ultimately recommend to the executive council, I would mention to the House that it is expected that the initial non-regulated tests would be: macroscopically read analyses performed on urine for the detection of pregnancy; blood glucose using chemical test strips; and screening tests on urine by test strips or simple urinalysis. In association with this amendment it is proposed also to enable dentists as well as medical practitioners to undertake exempted tests. These changes will resolve difficulties which have arisen as a result of the relative inflexibility of the Act without, I hasten to add, detracting from its fundamental principles. It only remains for me to mention that the opportunity of the Bill is being taken to take on board some housekeeping amendments which have been requested by the board. These are explained in the notes printed with the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COOPER (Mornington). Debate adjourned until Thursday, 4 April.

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: That the House do now adjourn. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 601

Priority funding for Geelong Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) -- I raise a matter for the attention of the Premier. Perhaps she could take on board what I categorise as correspondence I have written to her on priority funding. Honourable members are well aware of the Premier's visits to the Geelong Ford workers rally, the West Geelong Pakofest, the Avalon aerospace development and meetings with union and community leaders. These visits have highlighted the government's awareness of the needs of Geelong at this time. The Premier has also made representations to the Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer for priority funding for urgent projects in Geelong and is aware of my representations for priority funding. I ask the Treasurer to consider in the lead-up to the State Budget the priority funding which I directed attention to in my correspondence. They include the Geelong ring road, the South Barwon, Oberon and Belmont school colleges and hospital funding for the Grace MacKellar kitchens. I should like to thank the Premier for the invitation she extended to two Geelong schools whose bands played in Parliament House on the last two Tuesday evenings. I know honourable members appreciated the music of the two schools but the Premier will be aware that the needs of Geelong are providing many people with much media publicity. I am sure the Treasurer is aware of this priority funding that is being called for by the Geelong community and I hope the Premier takes these matters on board. VICROADS tender process Mr LEIGH (Malvern) -- I raise a matter of discrimination against not only Victorian companies but also Australian small business. I have a copy of a VICROADS tender that appeared in the daily media on Tuesday this week. It is an invitation to tender for a program and resource management system and is contract No. 1933. One may not think that is important, but I assure the House that the government is discriminating against Australian business. The SPEAKER -- Order! I ask the honourable member for Malvern to clarify to which Minister he is directing the matter. Mr LEIGH - I am directing it to the attention of the Minister for Transport. The problem is not with the tender in that it seeks a prime contractor; the problem is what VICROADS requires the tenderer to do. I shall quote from the advertisement that appeared in the daily newspapers:

The tenderer will be required to pay $1000 non-refundable deposit for the Invitation to Tender documents. A refundable tender deposit of $25000 must be submitted with the tender. I have two concerns: if 40 companies submit tenders, the government will get $40 000. However, the $25 000 refundable deposit is of greater concern. The only computer companies in Australia that will be able to tender for the work will be multinational companies such as mM Australia Ltd, Digital Equipment Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd and one or two others. I have been assured that small computer businesses have the ability to do the work required. However, if the government introduces a policy ADJOURNMENT

602 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

requiring substantial deposits to be submitted with tenders, small businesses will be unable to submit tenders, and that is outrageous. It is one thing to have a list of preferred companies able to submit tenders, but it is another thing for the government to demand a $25 000 refundable fee. If the tender process takes two or three months the State government will have the use of other people's money for that period.

All honourable members know the government is financially, morally and politically bankrupt, but I did not realise it had stooped so low as to actively work against small business in this State. If the Premier and the Minister for Transport are serious about providing opportunities for Victorian companies, I want to know why the government has taken the decision to purposely discriminate against small business. That is the net effect of what has happened.

Three companies have contacted me during the past two days about this matter and none of them can enter the tender process because they cannot pay the required $25 000 refundable deposit.

This is a serious matter. If the government is to have any integrity at all in trying to get Victoria moving again - and all members of Parliament hope to see that happen - it is time it stopped discriminating against Victorian business. The government has made it hard enough for business over the past eight years and now it is making it even harder.

The Minister for Transport has a choice, he can either have multinational companies providing the systems or have Victorian companies. The Victorian companies are not seeking any advantage other than being able to tender on an equal and fair basis, but they cannot because of the deposit mechanism. I urge the Treasurer to contact the Minister for Transport to make provision as urgently as possible to remove from all government departments, not just VIC ROADS, the requirement for substantial deposits, cash up-front, and perhaps introduce a preferred tender system. Traffic on Heatherton Road Mr NORRIS (Dandenong) -- I ask the Minister for Community Services to inform the Minister for Transport about a matter of grave concern to many parents in my electorate: the very busy Heatherton Road. It is possibly developing into one of the busiest arterial roads running through that part of metropolitan Melbourne.

As a result of the rapid growth corridor in Endeavour Hills and Berwick it is used even more extensively than it ever was. There are two sections of Heatherton Road that are of particular concern to parents because they involve an increased use of the road by children following the recent construction of the splendid swimming pool complex in Dandenong.

Honourable members will remember the disaster at the Dandenong swimming pool a few years ago when a wall collapsed during a school swimming carnival with tragic results. The City of Dandenong in its wisdom - and I congratulate it - has put that ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 603

tragedy behind it and constructed one of the finest aquatic complexes in the Southern Hemisphere. It was officially opened a couple of months ago.

The construction of this swimming centre has resulted in an increased pedestrian traffic use by children making their way to that magnificent complex. In particular I refer to children who live in the North Dandenong area and who have to cross Heatherton Road in the Cleeland Street area to get to the swimming pool. There are traffic lights at the Stud Road -- Heatherton Road intersection but the area where most of the children cross would be at least a quarter of a mile from there.

The children will not walk up to the lights at that intersection, they try to beat the traffic and dash across Heatherton Road by Oeeland Street. I have my heart in my mouth whenever I am in that area watching the kids running across that busy road.

I ask the Minister for Transport to give serious consideration to the request that has been made to have a pedestrian crossing installed in that part of Heatherton Road by Cleeland Street to service the magnificent and extremely busy and active Dandenong swimming pool complex.

The other part of Heatherton Road that requires similar attention is where it runs through Noble Park near the Noble Park railway station at the railway gates. An excellent skateboard ramp complex is being constructed there by the City of Springvale. I compliment both cities, they have done splendid jobs in the area of youth. The skateboard ramp has been constructed with the assistance of the Department of Sport and Recreation at a cost of $50 000 and was recently opened by the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It is installed in the very attractive open-air Noble Park swimming pool.

The open-air swimming pool has now been heated and as a result there is increased traffic. Previously it was only a worry in the summer months, but with the installation of the skateboard facility that area is going to be used 52 weeks of the year with kids flocking from all over the neighbouring areas. In fact, several of the neighbouring councils helped to fund that skateboard complex. The cities of Oakleigh, Springvale and Dandenong have all had an input in the funding as well as the Department of Sport and Recreation.

At the part of Heatherton Road which is by the Noble Park railway station kids are risking life and limb by trying to scuttle across the road in the face of a tremendous amount of traffic. If the Minister looks at those areas, in particular, he will agree that something has to be done regarding pedestrian access.

In summary, I am referring to the part of Heatherton Road by Oeeland Street servicing the Dandenong swimming pool complex, and the part of Heatherton Road by the Noble Park railway station servicing the Noble Park open-air swimming pool and skate boarding complex. ADJOURNMENT

604 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 21 March 1991

Milk Pricing Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I raise a matter with the Minister for Agriculture relating to the price of milk in this State. The retail price of milk in Victoria ranges from 87 cents to 91 cents a litre, and I understand this is about 5 cents less than in New South Wales. The honourable member for Swan Hill also raised this matter last night on the adjournment debate and he was particularly concerned about the way the margins are set at the moment for the processors in the industry within the electorate of Swan Hill. The only two towns that are likely to have a delivery of fresh milk - in other words, the only two communities not affected by remote area rebates -- are Swan Hill and Kerang, and that was particularly of concern to him. I understand that concern because on 1 November last year the retail price of milk increased by 4 cents a litre yet the processors received only 0.34 cents a litre, or a rise of approximately 4.6 per cent. Today I understand the processors have met with the Minister for Agriculture and have demonstrated through a report that they are receiving less than 1 per cent return on capital investment within the industry. In this day and age they should be looking at something like a 15 to 20 per cent return on capital investment in this sort of industry. By comparison, the price of soft drink starts at about $1.40 a litre and it is nowhere near as nutritious or essential as milk. The milk industry is dependent on all sectors of the delivery process, whether it is the dairy farmers at the producer end or the processors and distributors. It is necessary for them all to receive a reasonable profit share so that the distribution of milk is strong and sound. To be strong and aggressive in the marketplace a fair and equitable return on milk should be going to the processors. The processors are demonstrating strongly, and indeed talking about strike action, because they believe there is a need for a 5-cents-a-litre increase on the processing side of the industry to justify a reasonable return to them. It would be unfortunate if it came to strike action, and I ask the Minister what action he will take over the next few days in response to the submission of the processors. Keilor overpass reservation Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport and, in his absence, the Treasurer is actually an invitation for the Minister, when he visits my electorate next Saturday for the official opening of the Calder Highway bypass road, to detour for 5 minutes to inspect some land adjoining Highland Road that has been reserved for an overpass. I consider the ten 5-acre lots on that housing estate adjacent to the reservation will never require the intended highway overpass facility. VICROADS owns a 5-acre lot on the estate. The estate landowners are paying for the installation of a private water main but VICROADS officials have said they have no need for a water supply and will not ADJOURNMENT

Thursday. 21 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 605

contribute to the total cost. If the VICROADS land were sold the new owners could contribute to the cost of the water reticulation and to any future sewerage installation costs.

On Saturday the Minister for Transport, the Premier and the Federal Minister are due to cut the ribbon to open the Calder Highway duplication road. Honourable members may remember that before the Labor government was elected in 1982 the Calder Highway bypass terminated at Niddrie. Now it has been completed throughout my electorate as part of the government's commitment to improve that highway.

Plans included the construction of three overpasses. I consider the Keilor - Melton highway will service the community at Melton and the small housing estate - a legacy from about 1924 - adjacent to the Calder Highway. An alternative to construction of the Highland Road overpass would be to examine the Overnewton-Calder overpass. It is unlikely that enough land will be available in the upper Maribyrnong Valley and Jacksons Creek areas for a desirable open space area. I ask the Minister to take 5 minutes on his way to the opening to examine the area and have the land that is no longer required for an overpass sold so that the future owners can meet part of the costs of necessary services to the housing estate.

Pyramid Building Society depositor Mr TANNER (Caulfield) -- The matter that I raise for the attention of the Treasurer has been brought to my attention by the husband of a Pyramid Building Society depositor. This case is another injustice that is obviously felt by many people in these circumstances.

I have been advised that my constituent had money invested with Pyramid Building Society, and that the account was cancelled in August 1989; the substantial sum of money in the first account was re-invested in another account.

The government's offer to depositors proposes to deduct interest paid on the money in the former account. This is a complication and a further injustice suffered by my constituent. No doubt it will be suffered by others in a similar situation who find that interest is being deducted not only from money they have had invested in Pyramid, but also from accounts that have been cancelled. I urge the Treasurer to consider the matter not only for my constituent but also for all others who find themselves in similar situations.

I am pleased that the Treasurer is gracious enough to be at the table and that one other Minister is gracious enough to attend the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting.

Mr Mathews -- One more than you deserve! ADJOURNMENT

606 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

Mr TANNER - I remind the honourable member for Oakleigh that under the Liberal administration it was rare that only two Ministers were present; invariably many Ministers were present for the debate. If this situation continues it will reduce the debate to an absurdity and may lead to its demise. That would be a sad situation for Parliament as it would remove an opportunity for honourable members to raise issues with the government. I ask the Treasurer to consider the problem that is being suffered by my constituent. Self-defence course Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training in another place, and I ask the Treasurer to take the matter on board, students at Traralgon High School who were undertaking a self-defence course. Last year, the physical education teacher, Ms Robin Alexander, planned a course on an introduction to self defence. The course was to last for eleven weeks as one of the optional programs for students at the school. Twice the number of students applied for the number of places in the course.

The requirement for an instructor in the course was that he or she be qualified or licensed by the Martial Arts Board. This requirement was made by the Ministry of Education and Training in a memo issued last year by the Deputy Chief General Manager, Or Jeff Dunstan.

The course was planned in consultation with people from the Martial Arts Board and from the education department. Approval was given for the instructor to teach the course and Ms Alexander received her certification from the board.

When the course was already in progress and being enjoyed by students Ms Alexander was shocked and upset when her licence was recalled by the Martial Arts Board. According to the secretary of the board the licence had been issued in error because Ms Alexander did not hold the rank of black belt in the sport of judo.

I understand that to obtain the rank of black belt - I am not a martial arts expert -­ requires twenty years of intense study in a demanding course. Now the school is faced with a dilemma. The students have contributed to the running of the course and they will lose if their teacher is not able to run the course. A large number of female students are taking the course as an important part of their general education and to build up their self-confidence.

Ms Alexander was qualified as a physical education teacher after she undertook a course at the University of Melbourne when judo was an approved part of the training program. Since then she has spent some money and a significant amount of her own time in gaining her rankings in judo, although she has certainly not reached the rank of black belt.

I ask the Minister for Education and Training to examine the situation and decide if one of two options could be chosen so that the course could go to its completion. The first option would be to arrange for discussions to be held with the Martial Arts Control ADJOURNMENT

1b~y,21~hl991 ASSEMBLY 607

Board to determine if some sort of restricted licence could be given to the teacher so that she could continue with the course. It is an introductory course and it might be appropriate that she receive special approval to conduct it. The other option would be for the Ministry of Education and Training to grant approval for this teacher to conduct the course as she has the appropriate qualifications to take a course in judo as part of her qualification as a physical education teacher. This is a matter of urgency because at the moment things are really up in the air. Honourable members interjecting. Mr HAMILTON - The students are disappointed that they may not be able to come down with a soft and safe landing on to the mats during the eleven weeks. As I said, it is a matter of some urgency and I ask the Minister to seek to resolve the dilemma. Responses Mr BAKER (Minister for Agriculture> - As the Deputy Leader of the National Party said, it is true that earlier today I met with milk processors. Honourable members will understand that a set procedure is in place for the determination of milk prices. To a large extent it has been designed to keep the determination at arm's length from the Minister of the day. The process works on the basis of consideration being given every six months to the price that will be charged for milk. The decision is made by the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority, which gives representation to a wide range of groups involved in the industry, including the processors. To determine the price of milk, propositions are put forward and then considered by the Prices Commissioner and ultimately by Cabinet. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has said also, in the past decade in Victoria we have managed to keep the retail price of 1 litre clean - I am not sure if that is the expression -- Honourable members interjecting. Mr BAKER - One litre plain is the expression they use. Mr Mac1ellan - It is all clean. Mr BAKER - Yes, and it is extremely plain. We have managed to keep the price well below prices charged by other eastern seaboard States. In New South Wales the price is 96 cents a litre, compared with the Victorian price of 91 cents, and in Queensland it is 99 cents. On Monday the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority will be deliberating and will reach a final verdict on the price that will be charged for milk from 1 May. I have considered the documentation, the arguments and the mathematics provided by the processors. On the evidence it is true they are not getting an adequate return on investment, given the amount of investment in the industry. I am hopeful that that will be taken into account in the sums when the VOlA produces its decision. ADJOURNMENT

608 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 1991

However, I mention that the industry tends to be over-capitalised, particularly in the case of a couple of the processors, and a significant amount of spare capacity exists. For that reason, when you are looking at return-<>n-investment figures, you have to be careful not to ask the Victorian community to sponsor any rash or foolhardy investments that might have been made in the past. I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party for raising the matter, and I hope to be able to give the House some good news in the near future. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The member for South Barwon raised an issue for the attention of the Premier, and I shall bring that to her attention. The member for Malvern raised an issue about a transport tendering process, and I shall direct that to the attention of the Minister for Transport. The member for Dandenong raised for the attention of the Minister for Transport his concern about the need for pedestrian protection at a number of spots along Heatherton Road which, as we all know, is becoming busier all the time. He particularly mentioned the needs of the new Dandenong swimming centre which is one of the best swimming centres one could find anywhere. The variety of activities apart from swimming that are available obviously draws more people than before to the centre. The member for Keilor raised an issue concerning the potential sale of land in his electorate, and I shall direct that to the attention of the Minister for Transport. I must admit that I have an interest in the matter, because should the land be declared surplus to requirements there would be no need to have it locked up in a freeway reservation. The member for Caulfield raised with me a problem concerning a Pyramid Building Society account. I assume that concern has been communicated to State Bank Victoria, and I shall follow up the matter. The member for Morwell raised the problems faced by members of a beginners self-defence class in Traralgon and asked that the matter be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training - who does not need self-defence training himself. Nevertheless I shall draw that matter to the Minister's attention, and he will reply directly to the honourable member. House adjourned 5.38 p.ol. until Tuesday, 26 March.