QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 26 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 609 Tuesday, 26 March 1991 The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 2.4 p.m. and read the prayer. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE KEW COITAGES Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I ask the Premier: will she give a guarantee that the appalling situation at Kew Cottages, where residents have been denied food because of the governmenfs mismanagement, is not occurring at any other government institution; or was this disgrace confined to discrimination against Victoria's disabled at Kew Cottages? The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the Leader of the Opposition that he may not include expressions of interest in his question. I ask h'm to rephrase the question. Mr BROWN - I ask the Premier: does she agree that the situation that all Victorians consider to be an absolute disgrace - namely, residents at Victoria's Kew Cottages having been denied food because of budgetary considerations - is unacceptable; will she guarantee that such discrimination has been confined only to Victorians at Kew Cottages; and what action does she propose to take to ensure that such a situation never arises again? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I share his view that no reductions in budget should impinge on the diet or care of residents. As soon as she was infonned of the situation, the Minister for Community Services made sure that the food part of the budget has been restored, and I am informed that a similar situation does not exist at any other institution. But there was no need for it to take place in the first place; I must say that that is what I find so annoying. This area of disability has been an area that I have been interested in . now for some twenty years, since a previous Premier - prior to the honourable member for Bundoora - the Honourable Dick Hamer, actually led the Minus Children'S campaign after being persuaded by the Age to do so. It is not very pleasant for me as Premier to find any kind of discrimination against those with disabilities and I know the Minister shares that view. However, I point out that it is also not very appropriate for the opposition - and I am not suggesting this was the case with the Leader of the Opposition's question, but I have heard some comments around 77597/91-21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 610 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 26 March 1991 the place - to suggest that this is because the disability budget in Victoria has been seriously reduced and we are not meeting our commitments. I point out that, in fact, the total intellectual disabilities budget is $232 million and that there was a $26.3 million increase this year. If you go back through the years and examine the miserly amount that this lot opposite spent on intellectual disability and their absolutely gutless failure to take people out of institutions because they were not prepared to spend the money, you realise that our record overall stands as a first-class record, and we happen to know that it is the best in Australia. STATE DEBT Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I refer the Premier to the fact that the net debt of the State was budgeted to increase by $574 million despite the same Budget providing for asset sales of $3310 million, and I ask: how can this position be described as debt reduction? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The opposition has the most considerable hide and the Leader of the National Party has the biggest. I cannot believe -- An honourable member interjected. Ms KIRNER - I do not think you should dine out on that compliment. The Victorian government set a clear target -- An honourable member interjected. Ms KIRNER - You can deny it if you like; it really does not worry me! The Victorian government set a $2.6 billion target for debt reduction; $2 billion has been allocated against that target this year and a significant portion of the $600 000 remaining would be met if the opposition, which pretends to have some view of the future, were prepared to pass the State Insurance Office legislation. I am happy to have a full debate on the question of debt in Victoria, but if we are going to have one let us have a real debate in which the opposition is prepared to say to the people of Victoria that it will put Victorians first and politics second and will allow the government to meet the debt reduction targets it has set. VICTORIA FIRST Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - Will the Premier outline to the House the implications of today's Victoria First statement for the progress of the Victorian government's initiatives on micro-economic reform? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The announcement I made today on the jobs and training package was important to ensuring that Victoria's skill base is protected and for encouraging private investment in Victoria. There are four major principles in the package. The first is to remove impediments to investment by the private sector. The second is to maintain the skills base of Victoria while it is in an economic downturn. This is extraordinarily important: in the 1982-83 QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE Tuesday, 26 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 611 downturn skills were lost because apprentices were lost to Victoria. The third is the reordering of the government's priorities to enable investment in jobs by government. The fourth is to assist the rural and provincial areas of the State. In terms of micro-economic reform - a term much used today as a buzz word - two major areas in the statement are: firstly, the national rail freight corporation. Australia has waited far too long for the creation of a national rail freight system and the government strongly supports creation of a national rail freight corporation. The government is determined the upgraded standard gauge rail line will run through Melbourne and that the headquarters of the very important corporation will be located here. The honourable member for Burwood arrives late in order to attract attention. It is very important that Victoria uses the natural advantages it possesses in the transport area to reform both rail freight and ports. The reforms on ports announced today are a major step forward. The government will encourage the private sector in the ports area to upgrade port facilities and boost productivity. As an important first step in that process we will be advising lessees that they will no longer have to pay increased rental on upgrading and improvements to the equipment they have added to a port. Previously, as honourable members would know, they have not only been upgrading the facilities, but have then been asked to pay extra for those facilities and then unable to on-sell. The government will cease that particular imposition on the private sector, as has occurred in New South Wales, which will generate - given that the port of Melbourne is larger than the port of Sydney - $80 million to $100 million of private investment in port infrastructure. This will, of course, speed up the turnaround in the port when there is new investment in our port products. Over the next twelve months the government will ensure that the Port of Melbourne Authority is reformed at the same pace as the stevedoring industry is being reformed by the Federal government, in cooperation with employers and unions. Indeed, the government would prefer to do it faster. A review on a revised port pricing structure is under way. The government will eliminate truck queuing which creates expensive delays; and will improve the port's information systems. They are only part of the important statements that I made today on the training and investment package. The overall commitment of the Victorian government in this package is $160 million for 1991 and 1992. Approximately 14000 young and older people who are out of work or who have insufficient work will be retrained and at least 5000 jobs will be generated directly and many more indirectly. That is the kind of practical and positive response that the Leader of the Opposition does not like to hear. I intend to keep talking about the positive actions that the government can take, and if the opposition is not prepared to put Victoria first it will be judged accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 612 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 26 March 1991 KEW COlTAGES Mr RlOiARDSON (Forest Hill) - I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services and J refer her to the appalling situation at Kew Cottages where residents have been denied food because of the government's mismanagement. The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member to recommence his question and omit statements of opinion. Mr RlOiARDSON - I refer the Minister for Community Services to the situation at Kew Cottages where residents have been denied food because of the government's mismanagement and I ask: who made the decision to deny the residents food and what action has been taken to discipline that person? Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services) - I have been appalled, as have other honourable members, at the incidents that have come to our attention regarding the reduction of the quality and the quantity of food offered to the residents at Kew Cottages. It is unacceptable, and the situation has been addressed and the amount of food has been increased. A dietitian has been asked to prepare a report, which has been sent to the Director-General of Community Services Victoria. At anyone time a number of people in institutions may reject food for a number of reasons.